Thanks for your research, your writing and your caring, Mel Hurtig. I am in agreement with you.

JWStewart:
Although there is reasonable logic in your reply, I must differ with your notion of arming Canada with nuclear weapons.

The people of the US are armed with guns: hand guns, rifles, you name them. These have not deterred violence. It has led to more accidental shootings, more bullying with guns and more shootings in the heat of the moment. I can see the same thing happening with nuclear weapons: they are just bigger guns. If you place them in the hands of more people, someone is bound to use them. The problems with such things grow geometrically as they become more common place. Murphy's law gets kicked into a higher gear.

Good article, Mel. And more proof that the rulers of the world are psychopaths and deserve being placed in institutions for the criminally insane.

jw, I agree with you, I think Canada should aquire some nukes to keep the USA honest. Without, they will invade us, it is the nature of the beast; but with nukes, they may think twice.

jwstewart

Each passing day of the Iraqi debacle is an illustration of the fallacious logic of this statement; as is, equally, the recent debacle of a nuclear Israel being militarily stalemated by a few thousand mobile and committed Hezbollah ‘irregulars’. The subsequent soul-searching among supporters and detractors of the IDF is more evidence that force and threats of the nuclear slap down are poor substitutes for diplomacy and responsibility.

Immune to retaliation?

Is the US safer today than it was in 2000, more secure, more stable financially and economically?

An empire is vulnerable, sometimes most vulnerable, when it appears to be at the point of its greatest power and reach. That nations might all like to possess nuclear weapons for one reason or another is understandable from a narrow internal perspective – that no nation (especially one like the US with imperial ambitions) should have them ought to be the default.

The hammer in the basement is often the one that brings the house down.

We are already using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan by dropping DU bombs.

Doing the Wrong Thing in Afghanistan: Depleted Uranium: The Definitive Moral Paradox
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/10095727.html?thread=2060399#t2060399

jwstewart sez:

You mean, like Israel? They claimed they were invaded by Hizbollah. Or Pakistan and India, who have routinely invaded each others' territory at least four times in the last ten years. Both are working as hard as they can on constructing a deliverable bomb, if they don't have one already.

Having nukes just raises the stakes, it doesn't change the behaviour. Weaponizing space also raises the stakes - it too fails to change behaviour. The only method of using nukes against a non-nuclear adversary is in an end-game of mutually-assured destruction. Coincidentally, that's the preferred method of two when used against a nuclear-armed adversary.

That's not me talking, that's two generations of political scientists and military leaders. There is no immunity from the stupidity of war and destruction.

I understand where Mel is coming from, which is basically a long standing "liberal-progressive nationalist" position advocated in this country. I even sympathize and agree with it much. But I also disagree with some aspects of it, and especially some of the emphasis couched in his, and many others in the peace and nationalist movement positions.

Tending, regrettably, to agree with jwstewart, I think the far greater danger to the peace and security of the entire world now comes from the US Empire pursuit of a nuclear monopoly for itself. It's disarming the US of this capability that is the main problem, and marginally less the threat that comes from "proliferation" per se, in my view. The US continues to assert a "special right" for itself in this nuclear regards.

And I do, if it is not evident, feel real uncomfortable saying all this.

But the reality even we on the left and in the peace movement have to face up to is, that in the real world the US Empire has created for itself and us as a consequence of its and Israel's "new colonialism" rampage for control of the Middle East, and against other powers defending against it, is a world where it is, I suggest, virtually inevitable that threatened states will seek nuclear arms. It is a given that if states like Iran, Syria and North Korea are serious about their own survival in this new US Empire inspired world order, they have no goddamn alternative but to nuclear arm themselves just as quickly as they can. It is already underway at breakneck speed, and will continue, again inevitably.

As it is always more important to attack the underlying and fundamental causes of a thing, than the secondary consequences, to get at a solution to the root of a problem, the more important task here is to create an international atmosphere of intolerance firstly for US nuclear weapons and their monopoly. It is to get them to seriously indicate a readiness to disarm themselves, and stop their interferencess in the internal affairs of other countries. This is the main problem, in my view, and less so the proliferation consequence.

Proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitably going to go on in this US Empire inspired world order. And getting at and resolving the root of the problem involves getting at that element which drives it-, in this case, the US nuclear monopoly threat and its imperialist behaviours in the world.

As part of that, is jwstewart correct in his advocacy of nuclear weapons for this country?

It may just be, in my view of things.

Though even if true, I think it is still way too early to advocate for that, frankly. I am certainly not interested in seeing, nor would it be useful in securing the taming of the US Empire, were this country to develop nuclear weapons, for example, in the hands and control of a US serving Conservative or Liberal government. That result would basically simply serve, in this political situation, as a reserve stockpile for the US Empire.

Continued next post...

In short, there is a huge political problem that has to be resolved in this country first, before this issue of nuclear weapons for ourselves can even usefully be looked at. And this involves our current subservient relationship with the US Empire. This has to be resolved first, breaking this cycle of control, rather than providing any right wing US serving government in Ottawa with nuclear weapons.

Then, at least, the issue can objectively be looked at from the perspective of whether or not nuclear weapons can actually serve a "however undesirable" but "useful purpose" in defence of the sovereignty of the nation from the threat of invasion from any foreign empire power with designs upon us and our resources, especially the United States. It is necessary always, to have the horse before the cart, rather than the other way around.

But hopefully, most seriously, as that struggle for the defence of the independance of the nation, and pulling away from US control over our economic, political and military assets develops, and I'm still presuming that it will, a parallel process will be going on in the world where the US Empire is already being defeated elsewhere, such as the Middle East and Latin America, and its aggressive capacities, economic and military, being majorly degraded. Such that it can pose no real threat to us or anyone else any longer.

So, there is, in my view, much premature about any discussion of nuclear weapons for this country. There is much of a more clearly political and practical nature that needs to be done first before it is clear that we are anywhere near that need.

So, it is in the context of what now is evolving, but even more in the future occurs in this country's relationship with the US Empire, and what happens over the same period to this US Empire, that will much determine my own attitude towards this country securing a nuclear option.

Meanwhile, more useful in my view to decrying the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries under threat from the same US Empire source as threatens us, is getting control over and containing the threat which arises from an effective US Empire nuclear monopoly. For it is likely of greater usefulness, as jwstewart and Grumpy allude, in fact, that this monopoly be broken by proliferation as appears absolutely necessary and inevitable in the prevailing circumstances anyway.

A truly independant and free Canada, however, would have to look at everything about itself and the world through new eyes. But again, the horse is needed befor the cart.

And again, it is really discomforting to me, to find myself taking such an effectively "pro-proliferation" position.

The reality, which Mel acknowledges in his conclusion as a kind of genuflection to a religious icon, but which I suggest is primary, is "everybody" has to disarm, or no one "practically" and safely can. And that includes the US Empire no less, and any "special right" as they may see for themselves rejected and opposed.

Of course, this might be appropriate, because thanks to the deft Bu$h diplomatic touch and the charming little habit of bombing anybody in sight and encouraging others to do the same
(we know who I mean but I don't want to get arrested by the thought police for being Anti-I....), it won't be long until the whole rest of the world is their enemy. Even his British poodle is trying to run away from home. Sadly the great Northern Poodle is just looking forward to being the favorite pet.

If the use of nuclear weapons is insane, is not the creation of such things at least as crazy? The Americans will not use nuclear weapons against Canada, they would just roll their tanks and drop their more conventional (now dirty) bombs. But they don't need to invade Canada: Mulroney, Harper, Gordon Campbell, and Klein have been selling it off to multinational (cheifly US) corporations. They don't need to fight for something they already own.

Only

was supposed to be in quotes above - I didn't mean to quote myself!

Sharing;

It's true that guns have been and continue to be mis-used, but they also have deterred violence.

Contrast Washington DC with one the highest murder rates and an outright ban on handguns, with Vermont which has one of the lowest murder rates and no permit required for concealed carry of a pistol. (I guess the greenback is the official permit)

And to more accurately quote Murphy's Law, if the nukes are already in the hands of one side, they are likely to use them even if the other side doesn't have them.

Albicaedes

Maybe "immune" was too strong a word, but the US is in no danger of utter conquest and having a military junta installed by Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Iran.

Zalm;
By the same token, Russia, China and India are in no danger of being invaded by the US or each other, ostensibly due to functioning nuclear weapons.

Hizbollah "invaded" Israel ? I call that a stretch of the imagination. Firstly Hizbollah is not a "state" or country, and secondly the number of fighters who crossed the border barely qualify as illegal immigrants.

I don't actually "want" Canada to be part of the nuclear community, but it still should be considered as an option.

After all, Canada has a right to defend itself.

(I just hate to paraphrase those 2 idiots.)

jwstewart, excellent points! like:

But how long before any sane American starts wishing it would happen?

To continue paraphrasing idiots:

The "terra" folks in Iraq are attacking themselves because they hate their new, freshly imported from America, freedoms!

Russia used to test their nukes in Siberia, China their's nearby and the US used Nevada and sent the fallout to St. George, Utah. If Israel will agree to test on land they own or claim, I'm cool with them doing tests. BTW, I'm assuming they own Washington DC, if you get my drift.

If the policies that the Great Northern Poodle has bought into weren't so dangerous for the whole planet, this would be funny.

I wish more Canadians realized that Mel Hurtig is one of the the few Great Canadian's in a time with a glaring lack of same.

You may be and are hopefully right. But that is an assumption, and a dangerous one you make.

There is also a whole range of "tactical" and so-called more "limited effect" nuclear weapons that the US has itself acknowledged working on and having developed. Which would make them "perhaps", even likely, of some usefulness against such an expansive country as Canada-, did they decided this country was upon a social, economic and political course not of the likeing.

So, I would certainly not be prepared to make your assumption as an absolute given, that's for sure.

Save you are right, this country is currently spread-eagle before them, with a tame government and capacity of no threat to their having their absolute way with us. We are a subject state of the US Empire, with a sychphantic colonial government and political system over us.

And so long as that is the state of our relationship with the US, we are of no threat to them. Which only changes when and if we decide to stand up on our own two feet, and put in place policies designed to enhance our self-reliance.

Then, I suggest, the threat level along with the quality of it, undergoes a dramatic and sudden change.

Currently, our natural resources, under NAFTA, are the same as their's. Which is the real object of their affection for us. In sum, we are no threat to, but a subject of them, their influence and control. Threaten that and move to change it, and watch the change in atmosphere and tone, and what weapons/force threats may suddenly appear on the table.

When considering bying weapons, one might consider what could be purchased with that money instead - you catch more flies with honey than you do with salt.
The following info that I cannot verify (but I belive to be basically true)comes from:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

The world hunger problem: Facts, figures and statistics

In the Asian, African and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty"

Every year 15 million children die of hunger

For the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years

Throughout the 1990's more than 100 million children will die from illness and starvation. Those 100 million deaths could be prevented for the price of ten Stealth bombers, or what the world spends on its military in two days!

The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving- Since you've entered this site at least 200 people have died of starvation. Over 4 million will die this year.

One in twelve people worldwide is malnourished, including 160 million children under the age of 5. United Nations Food and Agriculture

The Indian subcontinent has nearly half the world's hungry people. Africa and the rest of Asia together have approximately 40%, and the remaining hungry people are found in Latin America and other parts of the world. Hunger in Global Economy

Nearly one in four people, 1.3 billion - a majority of humanity - live on less than $1 per day, while the world's 358 billionaires have assets exceeding the combined annual incomes of countries with 45 percent of the world's people. UNICEF

3 billion people in the world today struggle to survive on US$2/day.

In 1994 the Urban Institute in Washington DC estimated that one out of 6 elderly people in the U.S. has an inadequate diet.

In the U.S. hunger and race are related. In 1991 46% of African-American children were chronically hungry, and 40% of Latino children were chronically hungry compared to 16% of white children.

The infant mortality rate is closely linked to inadequate nutrition among pregnant women. The U.S. ranks 23rd among industrial nations in infant mortality. African-American infants die at nearly twice the rate of white infants.

One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.

Half of all children under five years of age in South Asia and one third of those in sub-Saharan Africa are malnourished.

In 1997 alone, the lives of at least 300,000 young children were saved by vitamin A supplementation programmes in developing countries.

Malnutrition is implicated in more than half of all child deaths worldwide - a proportion unmatched by any infectious disease since the Black Death

About 183 million children weigh less than they should for their age

To satisfy the world's sanitation and food requirements would cost only US$13 billion- what the people of the United States and the European Union spend on perfume each year.

The assets of the world's three richest men are more than the combined GNP of all the least developed countries on the planet.

Every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger

It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year.

corrections from previous post:

bying = buying
belive = believe

seems my keyboard is needing a good cleaning - as do my arthritic fingers!

You are absolutely correct, SharingIsGood. It is the greatest tragedy, in my opinion, of the long standing and current human condition.

But between here and dealing with that is a minefield, equally of no doubt. And goddamned regrettably.

jwstewart: re: Vermont

Perhaps many of the guns sold and attributed being owned by peple in Vermont were, in fact, purchased and taken to nearby states that have large cities with hunger, race and gang problems. Vermont has about 625,000 people, 97% of whom are white. They have lower than average poverty rates and higher than average home ownership. This has nothing to do with guns. Less than 1% is black. If you go to the following 2 sites, you will learn that Vermont is not representative of the USA and that use of its gun stats may be misleading.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8-8resxj4-MJ:www.americansforgunsafety.com/pdf/GunShowLoopholeandCrime.pdf+vermont+handguns+per+capita&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=8

I gathered the following info about Vermont and New Hampshire - two side by side states at the U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics. It seems that a higher percentage of murders are generally committed in Vermont using guns than in New Hampshire. I think that your beliefs about Vermont and guns are probably the result of poor data analysis methods conducted by someone who wants no gun control. Perhaps you have read a misleading report or two and/or have read quotations taken out of context.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomTrendsInOneVar.cfm

Percentage of homicides committed with a gun
Year New Hampshire Vermont

1976 29.4 63.6
1977 48.0 66.7
1978 41.7 36.4
1979 38.1 80.0
1980 71.4 50.0
1981 60.0 44.4
1982 47.4 25.0
1983 15.8 60.0
1984 20.0 71.4
1985 47.1 58.8
1986 65.2 45.5
1987 48.4 57.1
1988 34.6 63.6
1989 37.1 50.0
1990 33.3 75.0
1991 37.1 60.0
1992 62.5 60.0
1993 50.0 66.7
1994 66.7 33.3
1995 41.2 66.7
1996 47.4 68.8
1997 83.3
1998 25.0 33.3
1999 22.2 45.0
2000 35.7 40.0
2001 41.2 85.7
2002 72.7 76.9
2003 36.4 57.1
2004 30.8 18.8

from: Norman Mailer " The White Negro"

Further about Vermont:
Populationof the state's 3 largest cities:
Burlington: less than 40,000.
Rutland:less than 20,000.
Montpelier: less than 10,000.

I think in terms of statistical significance, Vermont as a state is meaningless when comparing its trends in violence with other states with huge cities and huge ethnic/racial/immigrant wealth distribution issues. I have been to Vermont: pretty to look at, but the people I met didn't want strangers from other states/lands moving in.

I know Canadian's call (inappropriately) all Americans Yankees. Actually other than the baseball team they are just a few guys in Vermont.

Actually about as accurate as "US citizens" calling themselves "American". All of us in this hemisphere, North and South, are more accurately true "Americans". Though it is a concept US citizens/Yankees have appropriated and apply inappropriately and arrogantly to themselves.

Better, as I intimate, to call them US citizens or Yankees. Though we probably more often, amongst ourselves, and inappropriately as well, call them simply "assholes". :-) (Save for our own version of your Neocons, who call them "Masah", and then fall upon and kiss the ground their Yankee masahs walk upon.)

While I don't think nuclear proliferation is a really great idea experience says that the alternative that the US would consider ideal- that only it have nuclear weapons- is worse. The only time nuclear weapons were actually used, apart from testing, was when the US was the only nation that had them.

Coyote, I'm fine with assholes - not all of them of course, but the ones trying to appropriate everything in the world to satisfy their greed, for them assholes is really way too complimentary.

Too bad the state of our politics lags so far behind the needed impetus to change the state of the world. I'm not sure we have a chance out of this if we continue to view nuclear proliferation in a political sense...in terms of borders, both geographical and ideological. I think we just are refusing to acknowledge the mere slip of time left...

Indian writer Arundhati Roy holds a unique view of India's entry into the nuclear world...saying "it signifies a new and diabolical form of colonization"...a re-entry into colonization by all those who once protested against the West. That India, hypocritically, has embraced the West's most diabolical creation of all...its most deadly iconic symbol.

Hurtig has said before that it is now up to the people...because our leaders and political systems cannot be trusted. I think he's right, although I'm not sure how we accomplish this. In his last article he mentioned using the internet.

"If there is a nuclear war, our foes will not be China or America or even each other. Our foe will be the earth herself; the very elements—the sky, the air, the land, the wind and water—will all turn against us." Arundhati Roy

I know and understand what Lynn and such as SharingIsGood are saying. And I agree with Lynn, and understand that at a fundamental level, she is right too. It's just that like wstander, I feel we are caught between that devil and the deep blue sea, and that what he says in the quote above is true.

And I hate it that I even think that.

I wish I could trust people more, which in this case means that if we, the left and peace movement accepted that Amerika be the only one left standing with nuclear weapons, that US citizens would take it upon themselves to disarm their own state. The evidence for that conclusion is not good however, and I cannot make myself think otherwise.

We and they are yet too primitive and self-serving, I think. I can't trust people that much. Sorry. If they think that we will take it and that they don't have to do anything, nothing is what they will do. And we will all have to surrender to their nuclear monopoly blackmail, just as it is.

Sharing;

Without digressing into a GC debate, you completely missed my point about gun control in Vermont versus D.C.

In virtually all of the DC gun homicides, no-one was abe to defend themselves with equal force, since it is illegal there.

In Vermont, some of those homicides could well have been justified, I hope at least one innocent father or mother was able to prevent their children from becoming orphans at the hands of a mugger.

A handgun is to the smaller, weaker person as the nuke is to the smaller, weaker nation, merely a tool to equalize the size of holes either one can make.

For a good read about Canada's previous WMD programs, check out a book called Canada's Secret War.

sharingisgood:

Perhaps if everyone had a mini-nuk......?
JW:
Murder rate in US is about 11,000 a year. With that number, does it really matter if one state has tighter controls or not? Canada's is about 600 (or 6,000 if you ramp it up on a percapita basis)

To even think Canada needs nuclear weapon's is dumb to think the U.S. would even think of dropping one on us is ridiculous. WE SHARE A BORDER WITH THEM. there are a lot of U.S. major city's along are border We share the great lakes. The only place i could think where they could drop one is saskatchewan OH wait Monsanto owns that province. We should not live in fear. We should be 100% against any country developing nuclear weapons. And the proposed space program is outrageous. $$$$$ is all the U.S government sees they forgot about about the most important thing LIFE.

The USA doesn't need Canadian cities, and they now own 1/3 of the trains and track that was (CPR) originally built to keep them out. CN rail is also largely owned and controlled by US citizens. They own Terasen and BC Hydro power grids.

If they want Canada, the US military will just cut off the highways and trains east and west and fly their fighter-bombers north and south. They will take the water, the grain, the metals and the energy from the Coquihalla tollbooth north to Prince George, Kitimat and Alaska, and all the land to the east to Lake Huron north to Hudson Bay. If the rest of Canada put up a squawk, then I suppose the Yanks could just nuke Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal: but I don't imagine they would need to. Canadians would then have to become guerrillas or (to the "Americans") terrorists. By then, I would imagine the USA (as well as the rest of the world) would be in a state of chaos anyway.

Mel is on the right track. I'll touch here on the idea that more nuclear weapons might be a good thing.

The notion of deterrence, which has be mentioned here, is central for “optimists” in the nuclear weapons debate. Optimists argue that more nuclear weapons states can reduce the threat of conventional war without any real risk of nuclear war. Nuclear weapons guarantee that no one will “win” wars because both countries would be assured of massive casualties. Because the consequences of nuclear war would be so great, states will not “blunder into war” and will act with great care to ensure that accidents do not happen. They will also ensure that they are capable of retaliating against a first-strike and will design systems to avoid accidental, unauthorized or inadvertent nuclear attacks. Newly proliferating states will have smaller arsenals and so will not face the command-and-control difficulties faced by countries with large nuclear arsenals. Terrorists, they argue, rely on secrecy and would avoid the complex networks that would be required to develop nuclear weapons. A general assumption of optimists is that states are “unitary, rational actors that consistently act so as to maximize their self-interest.”

Pessimists on the other hand argue that large organizations like states are made up of competitive and self-interested bureaucracies that are not “rational” per se. For instance, military elites may be more likely than civilians to use nuclear weapons; states will not always create arsenals that can survive a first strike; and the interests of certain bureaucratic units or other interests may preclude effective controls and safety measures. Conventional wars may still occur on the nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used. Moreover, pessimists say that arguments based on deterrence inappropriately disregard the possibility of anonymous or terrorist attacks, and the possibility of accidental, unauthorized or "inadvertent" (i.e. authorised, but with false intellegence) use of nuclear weapons.

In No End in Sight – The Continuing Menace of Nuclear Proliferation (2004), Busch argues that empirical analyses of “command, control, communications and Intelligence” (CCCI) systems and “fissile material protection, control, and accounting” (MPC&A) systems should inform the nuclear proliferation debate. CCCI systems attempt to prevent unauthorized, accidental or inadvertent nuclear attacks. MPC&A systems prevent the diversion of fissile materials to terrorists or newly proliferating states. Both optimists and pessimists agree that strong CCCI and MPC&A systems are in the “rational” interests of states, but they disagree about the likelihood and ability of states to achieve this. Busch reviews the CCCI and MPC&A systems in the U.S., Russia, China, India and Pakistan, and Iraq, Iran and North Korea to the extent possible. He concludes there are frequently economic, technological and bureaucratic constraints on developing strong MPC&A and CCCI nuclear systems; newly proliferating states engage in denial and deception techniques creating extreme limitations on CCCI and MPC&A systems, compounded by any domestic instability; newly proliferating states undertake secretive programs that restrict criticism and “nuclear learning;” states, particularly newly proliferating states, or subunits of states often simply do not appreciate the importance of CCCI and MPC&A measures; and, finally, political, economic and social upheavals can “seriously undermine” nuclear controls.

In my opinion, there is no doubt that we need to drastically reduce or elimininate nuclear weapons, and if it is difficult to eliminate them (i.e. to due to the risk of one country / organisation achieving a monopoly) then they should likely be under some form of multilateral control.

And I hate it that I even think that.

We are definitely caught between the devil and the deep blue sea... much agree, Coyote... I understand what you and wstander are saying also...that Amerika's boots always kick hardest at those unable to defend themselves... or at those who at least are perceived unable to defend themselves.

...and this following quote of yours...so true, too... indeed at the heart of this issue ("the special rights" of Amerika) :

I just think time itself and the corruption within all political systems are a real obstacle in this...I would like to see Canada stand up for itself in a different way than a nuclear one as Hurtig suggests...and I know, given the odds, that this is a little like wishing on a star...and that makes me Jiminy Cricket ;-)...but, hey I've always liked crickets...and insects are apparently one of the few things that may survive this all...so maybe it's worth a shot. ;-)

anybody else wonder if maybe the saudi's have a few nukes. is that why they were never invaded after 911 - is it really just about dollars or is the world afraid to go after the exporter of the ideology of the islamic extremists for other easons as well...

nukes - tuck, duck and die

Who says Canada needs Nukes should try to remember that Canada had them years ago. The Voodoos carried them, the artillary pieces in Europe had them and,the 104's had them as well, I'll not go farther in that direction beyond saying there were a few other places here as well.

A number of US weapon loads have been dropped here and there around the world. One bomb ended up in northern BC, off spain and in the very high arctic. Russian submarines in storage are starting to sink as they can't afford to keep them powered up . And of course the present US government is talking about new improved as we write. Hurtig is right. and periodically we hear about the need for nucleur as a cheap source of power. Clean old peace loving Canada sold a few units and they were used to build bombs in countries that can't affford to feed their citizens.

Nukes are bad news. I recall reading about suitcase bombs developed by the USSR years ago. If they could then, who has them now. Nobody would win a war with nukes involved. People are still dying from the effects of Hiroshima and that was a baby sized one.

SharingIsGood:
http://www.answers.com/topic/occupied-canada

Thanks, RickW.
History is often a matter of a few different choices resulting in events unfolding in a different way. Chaos theory - the butterfly sneezed and Canada is part of the USA.

Wow! Your so smart. Lets put nuclear silo's on every streetcorner in Canada and the U.S. so we can all feel safe! About as sharp as a ball bearing, you are.

And then we can pursure disarmament on an equal footing. Ours get dismantled along with everyone elses. - jwstewart

You don't seriously believe that two wrongs make a right, that a shitty example of how to live internationally will some day pay off with peace. This inspiring nationalist blab might work on the odd sleeper, but anyone with a brain knows that threats of destruction will never lead to peace. Only peace leads to peace! And what is peace built on? The truth given with love. And if that doesn't work, its time to get out the trusty old swords of truth given cold, humility itself. But WMD's to build peace? Nothing but a red flag.

We have two choices when it comes to playing with fire, to temper and test the blade of the dual edged sword of truth. We can chose hot flames (destroy all that isn't real) or cold flames (reveal all that is real in all of its beauty and ugliness, good along side evil and let both live, albeit, highly uncomfortably along side each other. Oh, the humility). Hot flames, cold flames, take your pick. But in the end, it is humility that inspires true change. In the end, it is total utter shame that defeats the tyrant. Not jwstewarts bombs, not jwstewarts "everyone should owns a gun or WMD so we can all feel safe" crap. And why is jwstewart so wrong with this? Try this: (cont.)

Profile of a psycopath.

- controlling (always, its is controlling the free will of others, usually through force or intimidation)
- shallow, self centered (its always me, I, mine, with a narrow perception created by a complete disconnect with the needs and wants of anyone else (mainly because of a belief structure that states "it will get in the way of my own needs and wants". Its "me first" at all costs regardless of the environmental, emotional, mental, physical and life damage and destruction. And don't they sing the this first and that first to get their way first? Its military first, Canada first, Ontario first, BC first, unions first, America first, Republicans first, Jesus first, minorities first, women and children first, can't anyone get it right? Try all life in the universe first!)
- vengeful and spiteful to those who will not let them get their way, or challenge their self appointed authority.
- authoritarian
- driven by their own self getting mechanisms and ego driven goals, regardless of who or what has to pay or in other words, "to succeed at everyone elses expense".
- Predatorial (all else is considered prey or conquest)
- Highly opportunistic (again, at everyone and anyone elses expense.)

The phycopath is quite prevalent in civilizations around the world, exhibiting bizarre, cold behavior for anything that gets in the way of their lust for power. Approximately 1 to 3% of the population is considered to have phycopathic tendacies or traits, depending on the severity of their destructive behavior. The sad truth is that their pursuit of power is often accomanied by those who believe the phycopath has "excellent leadership qualities" due to their drive for power and the bottom line. Whatever the goal is, be it money, sex, social prestige, political and or corporate power or otherwise, it is an ego run amuck and there are far more phycopaths out there than anyone would like to admit. Truly.

So while this is one of the best articles I've read in a long, long, long time, and it connects a good deal of dots, what needs a truer focus is not so much the tweaks or changes and reforms within the systems man has built within its institutions of government, law, edcuation, police, military, health, religion or otherwise, what needs just as clear a focus is what is needed in the leadership role. And that role must be far more scruitinized than what we have now.

We have in this world, CEO's and politicians that are killing the life on this planet through the destruction of the environment from war, waste, and control freaked disregard for all life, never mind human and a good number of us are lauding them as hero's because they are merely wealthy and powerful. In the end, in the final summation, the positions of power are beacons of light to the "phycopath". And until the average Joe realizes the true profile of a phycopath, how to spot and recognize one, and finally, how to "heal" them through reconnecting them with the wants and needs of all other life, we will never be safe regardless of how many bombs and guns we own. Its just how it is. (cont)

In the end, we will know the truth behind this statement. "In order to lead, one must follow." And this next one. "In order to follow, one must lead." And in case this confuses some of you, then try to wear other hats and shoes besides your own. Try other perspectives, not just from the the phycopaths point of view of role playing solely to define weaknesses and strengths to rule and plunder what a phycopath considers as enemy, allie or pawn... But from the perspective that is at all levels, emotional, logical and yes, spiritual for without this last connection, there is no connection to the universal needs of the whole and without it, the big picture is never seen.

Some notable phycopaths of this present day according to such profiles are, GWB junior, Steven Harper, drunkard Campbell, Ehmud Ohbert, various cult leaders, serial killers, sexual predators, Satan, and a large host of CEO's, namely in chemicals, oil, defense, HMO's, financial institutions and so on.

No one will ever be truly safe until the phycological profile of a phycopath is truly revealed for all that it is and heavily screened from childhood on up, with major scrutiny given in leadership roles. And this is also next to impossible to stop, it seems, for the vast majority of all phycological profiles, phycopaths being but one of them, have one thing in common. They've been abused. Part of an ongoing wheel of perpetual abuse, from one generation to the next. Combine this with the lies and fallacies that one swallows as real even though it might be absent of personally experienced abuse, and... like I say. We can serve the truth hot, or cold. Take your pick. But in the end, peace will not come until the truth is truly served with love.

Another dead Canadian soldier for Harper & Co. defense directorships and fattened overseas bank accounts. (yawn) Couldn't all you Con voters see it coming? Do you even care?

It muses me to see the hardline Conservative support out still out there. Political parties can be easily compared to, say, a sports team like say, the BC lions. Some of their teams have been great in the past, real champs. And some have been real stinkers. Bad coaches and GM's, bad players, and when the level of play on the field gets chippy or dirty or just plain sad, sometimes you even have bad fans. And when its all bad, the team just folds. No revenue, no interest...
but the lions keep hanging on.

The Conservative party has a few good players, the odd good personal in the office, but for the most part, their GM and their coaches suck and their players are nothing but hand picked "yes" men. While the Cons were a chosen bunch of antagonist "replacements" for a tired old team that was becoming long in the tooth, The Conservative party should be mothballed once and for all, for becoming such an international embarrassment.

These are dark days internationally for Canada. Nows not the time for Canadians to be apathetic. Its time to get pissed! Its time to step up and buck up, or move on to leave someone with "the fire" to make it happen.

There has been talk of Israel's PM being held accountable for war crimes from his recent decisions to invade Lebanon and break cease fires. Over 1,000 dead Lebanese civilians and rising, 4 billion in infrastructure damage, countless injuries, 3 dead UN observers, poor Israeli military execution, and on and on, and does anyone really feel "safe" knowing that Israel is sitting on nuclear warheads of their own? Is this nation, with its current heads of state, still considered fit by the likes of Bush and Shrub to hold nuclear arms? Apparently so. Its all a "measured response" according to phycopath Harper. To what? Kidnappings that have been going on tit for tat for decades?

Do we feel safe with Bush in power, knowing that he's using the nuclear card to invade Iran, while the whole world knows they are probably yet years away from WMD's? Why is Canada really in Afganistan? Why is Canada's foreign policy now identical to the U.S.?

Try Stephen Harper, the U.S. sponsored western separatist reformer, heavily backed by U.S. corps and the NCC to complete the coup for the sell off of Canada's essential services to U.S. corps. You name it. Healthcare, insurance, banks, every crown corp, every state run essential service you can think of...

Harper sold out his Canadian citizenship to the U.S. decades ago, people. If you voted for Harper this last time, maybe you like supporting phycopaths. Maybe you are one of them... misguided... lied to... abused... or just blindly cheering on your favorite team.

But when a teams players play dirty... and the coaches are corrupt and call for cheap shots at every turn... and the GM shows a complete disregard for how the game should be played... then its time to face facts and send this bunch of loser bums to the showers. Canada, this world deserves so much better than this. There is still time to safe face in the next election and send a message that we won't support warmongering greedy corrupt sellouts like we've got now.

Don't stop Duncan - you're on a roll!

Everyone should have a nuclear weapon, according to Iran. No, they are only interested in producing power from the enriched Uranium.
Like that makes a lot of sense.
An oil rich nation doesn't need to do this. If they were really interested in supporting Kyoto, there is no need for that. They could simply transfer carbon credits to Russia.
Are any of you lefties posting on this site really buying this.
More fool you, and we can't afford your liberal views anymore, sorry.

Ron, you get the US to give up their nuclear weapons and we'll solve this little puzzle in no time. Your blind trust of the Americans - and particularly the Bush administration - is what free people can't afford any more.

Duncan, you are a genius!

QUOTE]Everyone should have a nuclear weapon, according to Iran. - IMAC

Another classic example of Rotten Ronnie putting words in other peoples mouths again.

Just another example of clear cut cluelessness. There isn't a nation in the world that consumes high levels of oil and gas per capita that doesn't have a shameful environmental problem of its own. Irans smog is worse than the states. Its power generation is also old and out of date. They have 78 million people concentrated in a relatively small area of a small country in terms of area and while its nation is industrializing, its pollution is getting worse.

Do I agree with their bid to use nuclear power generation as a clean alternative? Clearly not. There are greener alternatives. But Iran is behind technically compared to modernized nations. They are playing catchup, pure and simple.

As for Iran's call for the destruction of Israel, if there is any Christian smarts in you (need I remind you that Jesus was Arabic), you would know that the apostle John in the book of Revelations predicted it!!! There will be a NEW ISRAEL and for that to happen, the old one must die. Clearly, our current Israel is highly dysfunctional at best and a good number of their own people know it, as well as us here at home.

This quote is taken from Truman, from another thread and its definitely worth a second read.

And so, if you want to have an exceptionalist state with 4 million of your similarees as the raison d'etre for the state--along with a covenant from God for its legitimization, not to mention an army of a million highly trained soldiers, nuclear weapons, a huge American-donated airforce, (and 3 billion American bucks every year to top it all up), a sophisticated navy, the world's most effective spy agency--and refugee camps for your state's former citizens--and all of this in the midst of 200,000,000 or so people who uh...well...dislike you, well then you're just going to have to kill and murder people to assert your entitlement. There's no other choice.

That's it folks. It's locked in position, and there's no entropy in sight to diminish any of it. - Truman

Combine this with an Israeli PM that was appointed instead of democratically elected, and... tell me, Ron. Would you like to be Israel's neighbor? How would you like to be "occupied" like Lebanon has been for the last 18 out of 28 years? How would you like to live in the largest prison in the world, as in Palestine? How would you like to have 14% of your own lands expropriated to pay for your prison walls to be built around you? (cont)

Do Arab's have a right to be miffed? A liberal MP went down there, saw the damage for himself, spoke his mind, called for open discussions with both sides, and now the Lib leaders are committing political suicide one by one as they call for the resignation of fellow MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

Predictably, the worm will also turn on this one. Scratch Scott Brison and Carolyn Bennett for calls of a resignation of someone who has the audacity to speak his mind (like the NDP and Buzz Hargrove split not so long ago, and the worm does indeed turn). Take out Bob Rae and his two directorships and talk of censorship of MP's, (thats right, Rae fans, another porker at the trough) and now there is only six more to weed out before one is found worthy. I'll go out on a limb and predict Ken Dryden as our next PM.

Alcibiades & SharingIsGood: Right back at ya, dudes. Its always a refreshing joy to read your posts as well, Lynn.
;-)

Thank you Duncan for elaborating about the relationingship between psychopaths and power. I am convinced that when the majority realize they are politically and economically led (and bullied) by psychopaths, they will finally move to change things. I also think that authoritarian hierarchies - the best description for our economic and governmental systems - help give rise to and perpetuatate psycopathology.

anarcho
Unfortunately, there's still that little problem of communication. How the devil does the truth get out to the voting public when the best progressives can do is applaud each other's (admittedly laudable) performances on forums like this?

Somehow or other there has to be a better and more effective way of reaching out.

Any suggestions?

Duncan, dude, you have to find a way to get more involved. Great to have you back here - as someone else said the other day.

jwstewart:
Your point about handguns is not lost on me; however, what you don't understand about my making my points about Vermont is that the violence in Washington, DC is a product of disparity. You place a bunch of guns in the hands of the down-trodden, desperate, or power-hungry and sooner or later one will go off.

Washington DC has a 57% Afro-American population. It has a highly dense population; a poverty rate - 1.5 times the US average, yet it also has a very high average (percapita) income. 39% of the people have bachelor's degrees or higher while at the same time; it has a lower than average high school completion rate. Home ownership and retail spending are very low, so there are few chances for employement in those sectors. There are huge unfairnesses. This unfairness coupled with the availability of guns in nearby states adds up to homicide.

Many university educated people, like myself, will not carry a gun - particularly in the middle of a large violent city. Nothing I own is worth killing over. With Vermont's being a rural, sparsely populated, homogenous society with little disparity and no racial/ethnic problems, it isn't so difficult to reason that they can have guns (mostly for hunting I presume). If, however you have a highly dense population of people - many of whom are underpriveledged, and you put guns in their hands, you get death. The greatest proportion of death in cities like DC comes from young sub-groups of a population who have been disenfranchized/marginalized (Afro-Americans, Hispanics, etc.) And, they shoot each other far more than they shoot unarmed wealthy people. In short, thug wars.

So, if you think that the answer is having more weapons, the lessons of gun ownership and poverty in the USA have been lost on you. It is traumatization and hopelessness more than anything else that fosters violence. The world does not need more weapons, particularly WMD - it needs more people to be educated, fed, clothed and housed.

Americans have higher rates of violence than Canadians and the richest 10% of Americans have annual earnings over 30 times that of the poorest 10%. In Canada it is 22 times greater for the same groups - but it is climbing! The work of intelligent people needs to be to educate people to this so that they can demand political/economic reform. Realistically, any personal income over $200,000 per year is excessive, and far more than a person should want given that so many of the world's people have been born into poverty and hopelessness.
People with high annual incomes have a duty to help poor, starving people.

My apologies for some poor puctuation/grammar in the above: I have had a bit too much activity surrounding me and my computer during the last hour.

I think the key, as well, sharingIsgood is to emphasize that the success and wealth of the rich is built upon a culture of entitlement. Entitlement to special tax deals, write-offs (US corporations and individuals can write-off the purchase of vehicles of more than 6000 lbs in one year for example), inheritance and trust holidays at the same time that they continue to build their success on privileged access to many services, low minimum wages and the like. It's important for these people to continue the lie that there is upward mobility in our society. Otherwise the poor and the middle class will get restive.

That’s why they always use terms like entitlement when they talk about the poor and attack welfare and minimum wage proposals – they know all the tricks in the book.

SaskFarmer;

For the sake of argument, lets assume you are correct about the leadership of many of the nuclear armed nations.

Let assume they are led by Psychopaths, with next to no regard for anything or anyone except their twisted self-interest. And they are armed with nukes.

How exactly can you appeal to their own self-interest when they come knocking ?

Giving them a hug at the border won't do it. Since you're apparently sharper than a ball-bearing, please tell me how to deal with them ?

C'mon braniac, tell us the cure for psychopathy. Tell us how to screen for it at birth, so we can somehow "prevent" those afflicted with it from occuppying important positions in society. (I think you call in Eugenics)

Sharing:

I have three things worth defending with lethal force - me, my wife and my child. In fact I beleive I have a moral obligation to protect them (or die trying).

This morning, when dropping off the child at daycare, the stalker in the van with blacked out windows became a concern. His presence the last couple days in front of the daycare made it neccessary to investigate. The police said there was reason for concern.

I looked in the yellow pages, and could not find any armed guards for hire.

Why should the "alleged" psychopaths that lead the country be able to have armed guards, and not my son ?
(True story, by the way.)

Were it possible to own a gun for self-protection in Canada, I would do so. However, even though the criminal code allows it, policies prevent any jurisdictions in Canda from granting such a permit to ordinary citizens.

It is because there are psychos out there that I think protection and defence is warranted. (If only to play devil's advocate.)

Well, we finally heard from one of the right-wingers. IAMC states an oil-producing country doesn't need nukes. In that regard, a peaceful and powerful nation should not need nuclear weapons. And the one with the most nukes on Earth shouldn't need to make more of them, while lecturing to others.

Don't assume all those in control of our terrible destruction are rational folk.

jwstewart
Ever considered you may be watching a bit too much television?

Excellent points, G West:

The entitlement that you speak of is one born out of pure selfishness, another psychopathic trait. Who gave Monsanto, Dow chemicals, Dupont, and others the right or entitlement to poison the worlds food supply? I've seen the charts of the trace chemicals that are in the seeds of our crops to this day. Few of you really want to know what I know. The added chemicals of the food manufacturers, the largest U.S. economic sector the states has, has led to obscene cancer rates. These corporations are run by psychopaths, pure and simple.

The history of Monsanto alone, should shed light on just how wacko some of our lauded "hero" CEO's really are. In the first four years of chemical production, Monsanto had 1 in 10 left from their inital hirings. They were all in upper level management (pychopaths and "yes" men). The reason why no one was left on the floor after the fourth year? 3 out of 4 (of which there were hundreds) had already died. We don't hear about such things because they were workers in South America, people who aren't "entitled" to a better life. It didn't stop Monsanto from pursuing profits and poisoning the world to this day, most notably with the worlds own food supply.

Who gave the U.S. the right to take countries to war with the mere threat of nukes, yet years away, while sitting on huge hair trigger stockpiles of their own? Who gave the rich the right to believe that increasing the standards of living of others would reduce their own? Entitlement to be better than everyone else, of course. What a phisod pride truly is. What a sad running joke.

Its as bad as Exxons former CEO retirement package worth more than 400 million, as bad as putting a numerical value on human life, as in human slavery. Today, nothing has changed. Poorer nations with poor people deserve poor nations to those who are "entitled". These forms of "entitlement" come at everyone and anyone elses expense.

I can go on, here, folks. And when my writing skills are more perfected, with more dots connected, I'll surely take it to the next level. But in the meantime, we all have the time to continue to educate ourselves with well written articles like this one, time to look inside ourselves with some deeper introspections of our own and see where are own distortions of reality lie, our own illusions of truth and clean out the trash in our own hearts and minds.

And, we certainly have the time to look more closely at who is really leading this nation, its provinces and its people that we love and do whats right when others don't know the difference between right and wrong, blinded by their own self interests, pure and simple.

Its time to lead by setting worthy examples of others to follow.

Duncan,
Send me an email:

jwstewart:

I already gave you the answers. The truth, given with love. And if that doesn't work, try humility and shame. Read my posts over again. I've made it quite clear what should be done.

And what, all U.S. citizens are morally inept and slow? I hardly think so. But their leaders are so hypocrital and war mongering, so selfish and yes, pychopathical in all that they do with a machine like war mongering, proud filled me first agenda, that more needs to be done then a mere "changing of the guard". Bush and Co. should be tried for war crimes for what he's done in Iraq, never mind what he aspires to do with Iran, for a start.

The same should be done with Ehmund Ohburt and Co. and yes, even Harper and Co. as they continue to lead NATO into Afghanistan in full support of UN policy. And don't think I'm the only one of the sharper knives in the kitchen thinking it. The key question is, how do you make them accountable for their crimes against humanity while they are still in power? How do you bring, even define, justice?

We need a complete paradigm shift in relation to justice and punnishment that suits these crimes against humanity on this one. We need total and complete outright shaming the like of which these individuals held accountable and responsible will lock themselves in their own prisons for fear of the shame that awaits them...

Or haven't you heard? The locks to the gates of hell are on the "INSIDE". Or even one better. A complete and total change within these same tyrants, spawned by pure truth, pure revelation and yes, in the end, by love itself! This is, in my opinion, the punnishment that suits the crime. A complete internal change, identity and all, that rebukes all that they once were.

Within life, there is death, yes. But within death, there is also life. In terms of spirit which does not die, it is a mere matter of choice.

Duncan, your post on the psychopathic nature of our leaders is so good I would like to quote it in my blog. May I have your permission to do this?

And you are every bit as likely to be right as I, Lynn. Let's both hope. :-)

Duncan, much enjoying reading your stuff again, brother. Keep at it.

jwstewart:
"...moral obligation to protect..."

I believe that we should protect ourselves and our families. That is precisely why I say no guns (nukes) at home. Most deaths attributed to guns/violence comes from somebody the person knows, often a family member. It happens (most likely) in a fit of passion/anger. Psychopaths plot their violence. They don't strike when someone has their hand on the butt of a weapon. They wait until people are most vulnerable - when their hands and thoughts are full of something else. They have no empathy for their victims nor remorse for their actions (unless they are caught - and must pay a price. Then they have empathy for themselves, and themselves alone).

Let's just leave the nukes alone. Even when they aren't used, they are messy and dangerous. The by-products of nuclear decay generally contain radio-active materials that are lethal as well. Radio-active strontium-90 is just one such material. It must pass through 10 half-lives for it to be considered safe. 29 years times 10 - that equals 290 years once the bomb material breaks down! One dust particle of SR-90 breathed into one's lungs is poisonous enough to be lethal. Smaller amounts (fallout) may be injested by cattle, they make milk -the milk that is set in front of your child for supper. Your child drinks the milk, her body uses this just as it would calcium, lays down some bone or teeth with it. Voila, leukemia in just a few years.

This is not the wild west. We have excellent police whose job it is to investigate suspicious "stalkers" in vans. We protect our families by doing as you did, contacting the police.

There are very few streets that I don't feel safe when walking alone (at night) in Canada (but then I am not a woman -either and that is a whole other issue). I can't say the same for walking the streets of the USA: they have too much disparity and they have too many guns.

GWest: always a pleasure to read your thoughts.

anarcho:
Quote away!!! Some recommended supplimental reading material is also in order, should you wish to improve on it and beef it up.

The book is called "Snakes in Suits" published this year, and outlines the pychopathic nature of CEO's using real life examples. I haven't actually read it yet, but do have some background in phycology and heard some of what the author has had to say. I've also had personal experiences dealing with pychopaths on personal levels, so I'm well aware of the true challenges needed to try to reconnect them back into the land of reality.

Make no mistake on this... pychopaths have been abused in ways that the average mind aren't able to initially see. When we think in terms of abuse, we think sexual abuse, or child neglect. But raising children with built in superiority complex's or extreme levels of pride with the "family name" or "God's destiny" can be just as devastating. The life of Adolf Hitler is such an example that comes to mind with highly unhealthy forms of superiority and pride bestowed upon young Hitler by his father. I suspect that Harper himself, had an upbringing somewhat similar.

Ultimately, we are products of our own environment, which is why it so important for true love to be given. This is perhaps the one most fundamental, critical error in parental thinking, to think that love can be taught. It cannot be taught, except in principle and historical causual effectual examples. This is absolutely no substitute for the real thing. The reality is that love is a gift!!! And hence, love must be given.

But make no mistake. The truth, served hot or cold, must be given with the best intentions in mind, with loving intentions, or there will be no peace. And where is love without forgiveness? How can forgiveness and redemption occur without true change? Until there is true change, there can be no peace, only war, and that war is by far more spiritual than most will ever give it credit for.

But all prophecy is changable, truly, except for a very few. All things to come are also known, except to a very few. We are all still ultimately in control of our own destinies, if any of us care to pursue it.

And one last thing about our Lib MP foriegn affairs critics resignation today. He was right to say that we need to have diplomatic ties with terrorist groups. We do need open lines of communication with them, if they desire it. And why? Ask yourselves why the UN needs the same thing to broker peace in conflicts.

Without communication, there is no chance for our nation to impact the chances for peace. And the 10 Liberal leadership hopefuls that condemned
Liberal MP Boris Wrzesnewskyj's statement that a terrorist list should not close communication ties as a backtrack to his quoted "Hezbollah should be taken off of the terrorist list", for fear that they would be misquoted or supportive of terrorist groups, is in my opinion, a sad reflection of the sign of our times.

The majority of Canadians are capable of seeing "beyond the pale" on this one. The media is more interested in clips and soundbites than the proper explanation of positions and what can I say? If Hezbollah is to be considered as a terrorist organization, then the political party of Israel and its war supporters could be easily considered for the same list. Oh, the hypocracy! And once again, how can we broker peace without formal communications? And do we really want full on MP censorship in other parties like Harper has enforced in his government? The voters must have the access and the right to know what is truly in the hearts and minds of the individuals we vote into political power, its that simple.

Coyote:
Its a pleasure to read you too, brudda. As IZ.
Excellent post, SharingIsGood

GWest
Maybe, but I've also lived on a street where random acts of murder occured repeatedly to innocent people. Until you've been there, you just don't know what it's like.

Sharing;
I think you'll find that most gun violence (and other types of violence) is directly or indirectly related to drug and alcohol abuse, not fits of anger. Legalize drugs and a lot of shooting would stop. (Turns out the van was an undercover cop).

Farmer;

I never suggested the US people were morally inept or slow, not sure where that comes from. But you are the Sharper knife who has diagnosed many of the worlds leaders as Psychopaths. In fact, you seem to at least have some of the Me-me-me, I-I-I disease, having condemned the current state of affairs, pronouned sentence on the world's leaders, and CEO's, demanded a paradigm change, and oh, one that meets your approval no doubt.

Honestly, I don't understand the aversion to violence in self defense of person, family and country. Hell, even insects do it.

And I'm not talking about agressive acts that are crimes against peace, I'm suggesting not firing until you see the whites of their eyes.

Otherwise, what's left is a world run by heavily armed psychos.

So true Duncan... You are brilliant!!

Peace Duncan

RTB

jw, defending the lives of you or your family, however you choose to do so, imo, nothing less would do...

Peace

RTB

"In fact, you seem to at least have some of the Me-me-me, I-I-I disease, having condemned the current state of affairs, pronouned sentence on the world's leaders, and CEO's, demanded a paradigm change, and oh, one that meets your approval no doubt."

I am afraid you confuse analysis and cure with the disease itself. Your statement reminds me of the sort of propaganda that is often put out by the right. People stand up, get angry, fight back. Then they are condemned as "being as bad as those those they oppose." I would ask you why exactly you think we should allow these mentally ill individuals to rule over us, exploit us, bully us and wreck the environment?

Back in the early 50's, it was the right thing to do, build a bomb shelter, and teach the kids to duck and cover under their desks. With a straight face instructors told recruits that by covering their heads with a simple piece of paper, you were safe from radiation. Guys I worked with almost came to blows to be allowed to go down to Nevada and watch a big one go off. They were allowed into slit trenches not that far away from ground zero. Must have been exciting. Most of them died wihin not too many years of radiation poisoning. After a few years we found out which of us would stay in the hangers and live and those non essentials would stay out side and die.

The tri cities south of here kept talking about how safe nucleur power was. So cheap you don't need meters to figure the cost. They sure as hell should have used meters to check the results as stuff leached into the rivers. Three Mile Island was a great mess. Ever been near a nucleur site? It's bloody well scary. Trogen was on the border between Washington and Oregon. Even had a nice picnic area and a few flowers to let the suckers know how safe it was. It's shut down well before it's life expectancy.

If someone can show me a way to safely dispose of nucleur waste, and how to keep weirdos from trying to bomb someone with the stuff, hey you might have a reason for it's use. Dr. Strangelove was fiction, but check out some of the articles by senior US officers and watch your hair turn grey( even if you are in your twenties) who was it that wanted to use the bomb in the Korean war as the US was losing it?

jwstewart:

"I said earlier that most gun violence come from someone the person knows ...in a fit of passion/anger." It may well be tied to drug abuse as well as you said: people with problems/issues related to drugs (and alcohol) often have trouble dealing with their emotions. One group is not exclusive of the other group. People are more likely to kill someone that they know than a perfect stranger. Even if drugs are the issue, if they could control their emotions, they would be less likely to kill. It is the psycho/socio paths that are the cold-blooded killers.

Here are 2 articles about the victims of gun violence in the USA:

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/aug97e.html

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/bulletins/gun_7_2001/gun2_2_01.html

No, you didn't suggest americans were morally inept and slow. If you would read it again, neither did I. What I tried to point out is that the U.S. is quite capable of fixing its problems internally... if they would just quit voting in psycopaths, that is.

If the shoe fits.

Hypocrite. You have the right to formulate opinions while others do not? And apparently, with this statement, it must mean that your own opinion of the world is one that everything is hunky dory, the CEO's and politicals leaders of the world are pure as the driven snow, with everyone elses lives and best interests in mind. Funny, its not what your first post said. To quote you again:

And they have begun to use those conventional forces outside the rule of international law, unilaterally imposing their will on other nations.

Therefore, one can only conclude than possessing nuclear weapons is the only guarantee to secure Canada's security. -jwstewart

You really should start backing up your own bull with facts first and if you actually started looking for them, you'd just simply learn to keep your mouth shut.

Fact: 4 out of 5 violent crimes are caused by people the victims already know. (other than war crimes, that is. Nice disconnect, don't you think?)

Fact: The introduction of weapons dramatically increases the likelyhood of violent crimes and homocides exponuncially. Go watch "Bowling for Columbine". On second thought, you're probably too closed minded to get it.

For whatever reason, your own self defense of family with weapons is straight out of Charlton Hestons playbook, a hopelessly lost arguement of the 2nd amendment right to bear arms when there is most often really no risk to violence at all throughout the lives of most individuals until they actually possess a weapon. Go take some psych and sociology courses and tell the institutions teachers of the world that you are right and that they and their stats are wrong and see how far it gets you. Only a fool would believe that more guns and bombs would make everyone safer. If you look like a fool with a gun, talk like a fool with a gun, well, sometimes you just got to call a spade a spade. Your a fool. And what? You'll shoot first and ask questions later, seeing as how you saw a glimpse of the whites in someone elses eye? What total and complete horseshit. Go back to school and try soaking up some fact based stats. History doesn't lie.

Its like this, slowpoke. The only logic behind more bigger and badder guns and bombs than the next guy is one of a pissing contest. And as each generational changing of the guards comes along, The pride and superiority complex gets sicker until one day, the nut psychopath comes along in a pure lust for power and entices others with the promise of power bestowed upon them in terms of more wealth and lands with the use of weapons and WMDs (cause thats why they are there, you know, useless unless you use them). You are the mental runt of the litter with your posts. Go back to school and grow up.

In the papers today we read about how the US is going to change the warheads on a bunch of their ICBM's Blame it on the need to stop terrorists, or somehting

Sharingisgood

Actually you better check your facts, the states with concealed carry permits (ccw) have seen a drop in crime greater than the states without. The whole “the street will be awashed with blood” didn’t happen as predicted by the anti crowd. Florida reports that of the ccw permits holders over the last 18 years, less than ½ of 1% have had any weapons charges against them. The US Justice Department reports that over 2 millions crimes were prevented or thwarted by armed citizens in 2004.

Anyways back to the topic. This article babbles about the monetary costs of the Iraq war, exactly how does that relate with nuclear proliferation? Also comparing China’s arm industry and the US is silly. Much of the money that the US spends is in relation to arms is in research and much of the money figures quoted for their arms sales is for big ticket items like warships and fighter aircraft for Taiwan and such. China however sells much smaller items such as small arms and is the main supplier for Sudan who uses those small arms to ethnically cleanse Dafur. So 100 millions dollars of weapons sold by China has likely far more impact on the world than a existing $500 million warship sold to a another country, that may never fire a shot in anger. Also keep in mind the figures released by China can not be independently verified.

The treaties have about the same value as restraining orders, they only work with the people that generally don’t need them.

I also seem to remember a press release a few weeks ago that Canada was increasing it’s contribution to help dismantle old soviet nuclear weapons, correct? We can do the world a much bigger favour by helping to dismantle existing nukes than spending money arguing around a table.

Treaties do have value. Without the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), a lot more countries would have N-weapons and there would be no international norm against there development. Hurtig also mentions the fissile material cut-off treaty -- which hasn't gotten hardly any press and shamefully isn't happening from what I can tell. Meanwhile, Iran is a big deal in the press, ironically, given that they are abiding by international law, albeit weak law.

Colin, I don't know much about restraining orders (except what I've seen on Trailor Park Boys when Ricky can't go near Cory & Trevor), but I think it is obvious that the institutions initiated to enforce the NPT, like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has a staff of inspectors who, since the discovery of the Iraq nuclear program in the 90's, have extended powers (e.g. to inspect locations without notice), are clearly relevant. (pardon that long sentence!)

Though you are right, Colin, that the system is weak. The entire set of international nonproliferation institutions is aimed at MONITORING facilities to ensure no materials are being diverted to nuclear weapons or being sold on the black market. If they notice some plutonium is missing, they can raise alarm bells, even if it's too late to do much.

The other big regulatory mechanism is based on the Nuclear Suppliers Group (countries with significant nuclear technology industries), which was originally 6 countries, but now is +30 countries. Nuclear Supplier Group countries restrict the trade in nuclear technologies when they don't think it is safe, but there are now so may, that it doesn't do all that much good.

But to say that treaties simply "don't work" is an over-statement. What you might really be trying to say, in agreement with Hurtig, is that existing treaties "aren't strong enough." For instance, recognizing that treaties can be hard to enforce, there are many people seriously considering international control over nuclear technologies. This could involve a serious erosion of state sovereignty. The nuclear industry is getting a lot of good press, but the challenges of regulating a burgooning uranium enrichment industry would be immense, or altogether imppossible with the existing, weak set of international treaties and institutions.

If nuclear weapons become common on the black market, and large acts of nuclear terrorism on port cities become common, it could completely change the political maps as we know it. Countries like the U.S. could fall apart, because they would be easy targets, but incapable of defending themselves. So you might be right that treaties, as we know them, may not be enough. The "strengthened treaties" that would actually be effectual may involve serious reductions in state power over territories, which might not be politically feasible until after a first anonymous or non-state nuclear attack. Unless we ditch nuclear power altogether, and cut back drastically on Nuclear weapons, the expansion of nuclear technologies and expertise may force us to adopt these "solutions."

As to China and the US, they are both countries with ridiculously large amounts of nuclear weaopns. They can't do anything to each other that wouldn't skrew over the whole world. The large amount of n-weapons throughout the world are a liability for us all. Canada's insignificant contribution to clean up some of Russia's old nuclear suberines is nice, is old news, and is missing the bigger issues that hurtig touches on.

However one might categorize Hurtig -- e.g. as a leftist, nationalist, pro-canadian (anti-american) individual or whatever -- his warning about acts of nuclear terrorism could be seen simply as supporting the american propoganda on terrorism, yet i think he sees that, looking down the road, we are getting ourselves into a sticky situation.

His agenda for Canada is worth supporting vigorously.

What I am trying to say is that the treaties will work when there is a will on both sides to respect them, such as what happened between the Soviets and the US, there was a benefit for both to respect the treaties. When one side feels there are no benefits to respecting the treaty and no real repercussions if they don’t, then they will not and may actually use it as a smokescreen to hide their activities. Iraq’s Nuclear program was exposed by Saddam’s brother inlaw who defected and not by the UN inspection teams if I remember correctly.

SInce you've brought up Saddam and the vanishing weapons Colin, you might be interested in a story from the Sidney Morning Herald I came across:

Sydney Morning Herald August 31 2006

Weapons cover-up revealed

By Marian Wilkinson

The Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, issued instructions to
suppress a damning letter about the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq after the war, a former senior diplomat says.

Dr John Gee, an expert on chemical weapons, worked with the US-led weapons
hunter, the Iraq Survey Group, after the war and wrote the critical six-page
letter when he decided to resign in March 2004. In it he warned the Federal
Government the hunt was, "fundamentally flawed" and there was a "reluctance
on the part of many here and in Washington to face the facts" that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Dr Gee recorded in an email soon after that "Downer has issued instructions
it [my letter] is not to be distributed to anyone". He wrote to a colleague
in the Iraq Survey Group that a senior official in the Office of National
Assessments, the Prime Minister's intelligence advisory agency, had told him
about Mr Downer's instructions.

In another email, Dr Gee said the head of the Defence Department, Ric Smith,
told him the department did not receive a copy of the letter even though Dr
Gee was working in Iraq under contract to it. Dr Gee said senior defence
officials told him the Department of Foreign Affairs "had not passed the
letter on to Defence".

There's more, guess you can find it too if you're interested.

Alcibiades

Thanks, you might also want to read Cobra II for some interesting details on the lead up, execution of the war and the aftermath including WMD’s. Of course hindsight is 20/20

I do owe you an answer from other thread so I will try to give my answer and drift this a bit OT.

You asked me to explain how I thought that Israel was winning the war against Hezbollah, here is my answer:

First it is easier to pick the losers than the winners, the major losers are Lebanon and the Iranian people. There is a joke in Tehran that says that Israeli smart bombs are smart enough to pick their pockets. This is a reference to the ¾ of a billion dollars that Iran is known to have spent financing Hezbollah up to the day the war started. Now Hezbollah is handing out money left in right to build support, this money comes from Iran and the Iranians must be wondering if their pet pitbull is worth the expense, considering the growing domestic issues in Iran.

The Lebanese lose because Hezbollah dragged them into a war that the majority did not want, without any time to prepare or evacuate their citizens. The Lebanese government is culpable as the government confirmed that they were are and supported Hezbollah actions against Israel and must accept the blame for knowingly allowing attacks against another state from their territory. Although the Lebanese claim they can’t control Hezbollah, the government could have gone public to warn the world that another attack was coming, but they did nothing.

Hezbollah
They defined victory by surviving, their survival as active conventional force and political arm was dependent on three things
Backing by Iran/Syria
A International arranged cease-fire in order to shield them from sustained attack by the IDF
A limited offensive by the IDF.

Hezbollah did gain all three of these, which gave them the ability to claim victory, it was not a military victory, but it was a political gain, but the cost of that gain is yet to be determined and they may not be in a position to make use of those gains.

No one in west really know (or are not telling) how badly did Hezbollah suffer, their senior leadership survived relatively unscathed (rumoured to be sheltering in the Iranian embassy) However they did lose large amounts of infrastructure, weapons and trained fighters The last will be harder to replace. Hezbollah has been a very disciplined and tough opponent, they had 6 years to prepare ground that was highly suited to static defense and would help neutralize the advantages of the IDF. They were also trained and equipped with some of the most modern Anti-armour weapons available. Present figures indicate that 50 IDF tanks were hit with ATGM’s of which 10 were penetrated with a loss of life. The static defence and bunker network also played to the strength of the Arab fighters, they had clear cut orders, a small section of land to cover and the tools to do so. Historically Arab fighters have not done well in the fluid dynamic armour battles that require training and freedom to command, this was a battle ground that increased their advantage and they were able to fight effectively. Aided by the early limited attacks by the IDF. However the drawback of this Maginot line strategy is that they could not adapt to changing IDF tactics and were being systematically isolated and destroyed in their bunkers, had the ceasefire not kicked in, they would be suffering very heavy causalities.

Israel
It is very likely that the government of Olmet will suffer a defeat because of this war. But the problems of the IDF is not all his fault. The tactics used to control and occupy Gaza are quite different than those used to prosecute open warfare. Much of the training that had kept the IDF sharp had been put off because of the situation in Gaza, plus the cost of operation there was draining the other budgets for maintaining armour skills and also delayed the rebuilding of early versions of the Merkva 1,2,3 to the MK4 level plus installation of an active defense system for missiles was also not carried out.
Although a great deal of intelligence had been gathered on Hezbollah and their fortifications, it had not been passed down to lower levels and the training exercises for such an attack had been curtailed. The IDF had also become repetitive in their patrols and their responses to such attacks, this allowed Hezbollah to plan it’s attack and to block the IDF counter move with great success.
Once the soldiers had been kidnapped and the rescue attempt thwarted, The Israel government made two other mistakes. It limited the ground offensive and did not activate their reserves and regular troops immediately, so they could start preparations to invade. 2nd mistake, they expected the air offensive to force Hezbollah and the Lebanese to come to terms. Despite the glowing predication of Air Forces since WWII, rarely have they had any real success in being the sole determining factor and the Israel government was a victim to their sales pitch, no doubt due to the reluctance to reinvade Lebanon and the likelihood of causalities.

For the entire war, Israel was fighting with one hand behind it’s back, partly out of policy and partly out limited time. This gave Hezbollah the opportunity to salvage some of it’s fighters and equipment and move them North of the Litanni River. The IDF had grown sloppy and overconfident and Hezbollah was able to exploit the failure to maintain good coordination between the armour, infantry and air support, also due to the lack of good intelligence, the soldier went in for the most part expecting the similar amateur antic of Hamas, Hezbollah discipline, equipment and tactics came as a shock to them and knocked them out of their stride for a period of time, however The IDF is quick to recover and adapted their tactics quickly and began to neutralize and destroy the fortifications. The problem now was that the cease-fire clock was ticking, the IDF had destroyed or bypassed the hunkered down fighters and was past the worst of the terrain, Hezbollah was now out of it’s stronghold and exposed, the IDF was setting open to destroy them, however the cease-fire arrived and Hezbollah was saved from the full weight of the IDF. Had the IDF crossed the river (actually for the most part it’s a creek) they would quickly overwhelmed the fighter and destroyed any that tried to stand and fight, portions of Hezbollah would have remained but fragmented and severely weakened.

So both sides can claim a victory of sorts

Hezbollah can claim it stood up to the might of the IDF and survived, Isreal can claim that it mauled Hezbollah and shown the Arab world that attacking Israel is an expensive proposition. Both sides have gained time to rearm and re-equip, unless Lebanon and the International community can defang Hezbollah, then this will merely be a pause in the fighting.

Another loser is the UN. UNFIL was shown to be mainly a waste of time, with a few minor exceptions. While it successor do any better? For now Hezbollah will not do anything to stir the pot as it licks it’s wounds and rebuilds. However Lebanese might start questioning the status quo and start demanding Hezbollah disarm and that may start a civil war.

A couple of other comments, you mention me spending time at the military websites, yes I was. One of the posters on one site was the employer of one of the 8 IDF soldiers killed in the initial attack by Hezbollah, on another site a couple of the people there had served in UNFIL and had some interesting comments to make, including the issue of water. A lot better than watching a supposedly dead Lebanese male suddenly appear as a rescuer in a subsequent photo set. Which reminds me another loser: Reuters and the MSM for their inability to distance themselves from their Hezbollah handlers. The blogs shredded their credibility.

After an hiatus , as per reading the Tyee , I simply want to express my gratitude for the vast array of exchanges that marks the high calibre of intelligence that is so needed in the world today...

And I would especially like to thank very profoundly ( DUNCAN - FARMER ) .. for his most wonderfull contribution to such a pressing question ...*..

Indeed we live in a world where our humanity is indeed - itself - in peril.., should we not heed the echoes that beats within our hearts..,

THANKS AGAIN DUNCAN , FOR A MOST REFRESHING, DETAILED AND HUMAN APPROACH , IN PROVIDING FOR AN ANALYSIS OF THE `HUMAN CONDITION`..

I AM REMINDED OF JANE JACOBS PARTING THOUGHTS ON THE HUMAN CONDITION THAT WAS AIRED RECENTLY ON `IDEAS`/ CBC..,

THANKS ONCE AGAIN..,

(MERÇI ! du fond de mon coeur ) pour avoir donner une lumière fondemental et précise sur une question humaine et universelle ).

VILLAGE

After An Hiatus , - Having Not Had Time To Read The Tyee For A Few Months - That Is ,

Being Reminded By The Quality Of The Exchange That There Is Indeed A Certain Light At The Very Edge Of Existence ,

intelligence , Compassion And The Ability To See With Open Eyes The World Around Us.., And The Universe That Envelops All

My 3 month hiatus , also has provided me a distance from this magasine , and I can attest to it`s progress as a significant emerging communication tool .., for all individuals that wish to participate and experience shared intelligence* ,

THANK YOU TO THE TYEE AND TO MEL HURTIG ALSO FOR LAUNCHING THE IDEAS EXCHANGE , THAT FLOWED FROM HIS CONTRIBUTION..

QUOTE (colin) "What I am trying to say is that the treaties will work when there is a will on both sides to respect them... When one side feels there are no benefits to respecting the treaty and no real repercussions if they don’t, then they will not and may actually use it as a smokescreen to hide their activities."

I don't disagree. But why would a country forgo development of nuclear weapons? The obvious answer is that they need to feel secure without them. In addressing this underlying issue, there is room for some new ideas I think.

In regards to using treaties to legitimize their activities, Iran is probably a good example. Incidentally, they probably have a good case for developing nuclear weapons, given the threat of the U.S., but instead they are working within the existing rules. Again, a fissile material cut-off treaty would address the issue in Iran based on objective considerations about the risks inhent in uranium enrichment technology, rather than based on a subjective evaluation of a country's motives. Canada should be leading on this issue. It may even be realistic, if everyone got their acts together, to have Uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technologies prohibited within the U.S. and Iran, restricted to other countries with tight countrols.

Mel also mentions strengthening the IAEA verification capabilities. This is indeed part of the "teeth" of the whole system. The nonproliferation treaty isn't based simply on good will; rather it is based in part on these inspections.

Overall, Colin's point is touching on an issue that is important: treaties need to be enforceable. With these issues, we are dealing with complex technological issues where, if Colin isn't right yet (about treaties being based on a countries' good will) then he may be right in 5, 10 or 20 years if things continue as they are. That is, if nuclear power drastically expands, if the global scale of uranium enrichment expands and the associated technologies become more readily available; if multiple countries become established with military capabilities in space... THEN it may become impossible to effectively monitor and regulate these technologies, partlicularly without intense erosions of human rights via expanded espionage, etc.

That's why, to quote IAEA Director General Elbaradie and others, "we are in a race against time."

Colin
Thanks for taking the time. I came across this from the 'tough to be a Jew' site above here. You might have missed it.
http://switch248-01.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=209947&ak=63628786

It won't work if you just click on it, you have to post it in a new window. I thought it was interesting and I bet, with your background, you would too.

I'm sure your analysis of the military situation is accurate but I'd still say the big losers are the Israelis although I'm sure the IDF will bounce back. I noticed in the film clip above (although I didn't see any actual evidence) that the Hezbollah fighters (the Israelis always call them terrorists) are said to have been wearing IDF uniforms. Have you heard these claims too?

Seymour Hersh is pretty convincing about the fact that the US was instrumental (or at least knowledgeable and sympathetic) to the Israeli moves and the evidence about whether the original provocation was an Israeli or Hezbollah raid is far from definitive.
Nasrallah sounds far more conciliatory and pragmatic than I expected and, with all the cash (no matter where it comes from) flowing in his stock will only go up.

In the end, if Olmert hangs on to his moderate Labour support I think there might be a chance for some positive change but if Bibi takes over all bets are off.

Relative to the US, it looks as though Bush hasn't learned anything and is still spinning his wheels in hopes that he'll get away with one more bout of crying wolf. See report of Salt Lake City speech today – more ranting to come - I think he’s a caricature. The one thing he could do now that might rehabilitate some of his credibility would be to fire Rumsfeld. The morale in the Pentagon at the operational level must be as low as a snake’s belly.

Had Israel succeeded in Lebanon I think that there would have been some serious consideration of actions against Iran before the end of September. Now, with Israel's morale in tatters - who knows?
Hope you'll see this.

Alcibiades

By the way I do read Haaretz a fair bit, some very interesting tidbits on there.

To update, it would appear that more than 10 tanks were penetrated now I am hearing up to 40% that were hit. Hard to get accurate information.

I heard the same thing about the uniforms and that Hezbollah was electronically eavesdropping on the Israeli units, mind you with UNFIL giving daily updates on IDF movement on their website and over the open on radios, certain helped Hezbollah, even if it was not meant to.

It is clear that Hezbollah triggered the action with their attack on the patrol within Israeli territory. What is not clear is their cooperation with Hamas. Just prior to this attack the Egyptian President announced that “outside forces” were encouraging Hamas not to negotiate a prisoner swap. I suspect heavily that Hezbollah wanted to get into the prisoner swap game and cement a connection between them and the Palestinian issue. It was a case of the straw that broke the Israel back of restraint.

What most people do not realize is that the US and Israel are not always in sync, Israel will have to live in the region long after Bush is gone, while they are dependent on US aid, they are not lapdogs either and many a US president and staff have been frustrated with them for not following along. But they are the best ally that the west has in the region and certainly light years ahead of Pakistan which is a cesspool that they must wish they could flush down the drain. Nothing in the ME is simple, the Kurds and the Americans get along wonderfully, and if it wasn’t for Turkey I am sure that the US would help with a independent Kurdistan (Also promised to them at the fall of the Ottoman empire) and they would make an useful ally for the West also.

Firing Rummy and some his staff, now we are in complete agreement, he reminds me a political Conrad Black/Donald Trump type, his meddling in the planning of the invasion and post war cost a lot of people their lives.

The real action is happening in Iran, the President has just urged the students to rid themselves of Liberal and secular teachers and apparently appointed a Cleric as the head of the Education Ministry. It seems that a 150 years of Secular tradition is coming to an end.

I have never doubted that the purpose of Iran’s nuclear program is to make a bomb, they are also working on the means to deliver them. But I suspect that for them the US and Israel is a sideshow, the real issue for them is the ongoing Sunni-Shia civil war that has been happening for almost as long as Islam itself. Plus Iran is supposed to run out of marketable oil by 2020 and they are in dispute with Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq over various oilfields. Also heard that they are introducing gas rationing as they have neglected to build new refineries. I will have to ask an ex to confirm this as she has family back there.

It’s a shame, just imagine a Middle East with a moderate Iran and Iraq.