Western forces in the region have settled into a defensive mode, in fear of retaliation from Iran. The Iranian-backed Shia militias are likely to take a more anti-American stance, reducing their activity against the Sunni ISIS.
quote:OTTAWA - Canadian and foreign intelligence indicates dozens of Canadians were killed by a potentially errant Iranian missile that downed their jetliner near Tehran this week, sparking a quest for answers that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suggested might take years.
Trudeau said Thursday that multiple sources show that an Iranian surface-to-air missile downed the Ukraine International Airlines flight that crashed near Tehran on Wednesday. It killed all 176 people on board, including 138 passengers bound for Canada.
The crash came after a week of soaring tensions in the Middle East, and just hours after Iran launched missile attacks on bases in Iraq where American and allied troops are stationed. Iran said the attacks were retaliation for the American killing of Maj.-Gen. Qassem Soleimani near Baghdad last week.
Trudeau said it was too soon to blame any particular country for Canada's losses, including the United States. Trudeau repeatedly said there needs to be a complete and thorough investigation to get “a complete picture of what happened.”
“The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile. This may well have been unintentional,” Trudeau told a Parliament Hill news conference Thursday afternoon.
He declined to offer other details about the nature of the information in Canada's hands but added that “the preliminary conclusions we've been able to draw based on intelligence and evidence today are clear enough for me to share them with Canadians right now.”
Canadians, so polite, not like our American Bellicose Pseudopresident ... "Trudeau said it was too soon to blame any particular country for Canada's losses, including the United States."
"Authoritarian ultranationalism" goes along with the big government beliefs of today's Democrats far more than it does with the individualistic beliefs of Republicans.
Except that Schrubbia and Trumpy Dumbty have both increased the size of government more than Obama or Clinton.
Republicans are better characterized by what they do (acts) than by what they say.
Fascism Is Not Conservatism
A fake news piece trying to make GOP fascism acceptable to their base. Worked for you.
My health care multiplied by 4 times during the second Obama administration.
I'll take the side of less government meddling, and more free markets.
Your healthcare increased because of the free market. There was/is no public option (medicare for all) to keep costs down. The republicans are responsible for keeping the public option out of the ACA.
The second Obama administration was dominated by GOP house and senate, working as hard as possible to dismember the ACA, including raising costs. Blame the GOP as Obama had nothing to do with ACA costs in his second term.
It's always the same, they love government's attacks on the "rich", believing the rich will dutifully knuckle under to government mandates, make sacrifices, and keep on producing and supplying employment for them. What happens more often than not, is "the rich", being much smarter than government agents, find a way to satisfy government mandates by raising their costs not only enough to cover the mandates, but to include a nice little raise for themselves, at the increasing expense of the public.
Like the health insurance companies did.
Personally I think that anyone who profits from the misery of others is the most evil despicable kind of person.
Fascism, Nationalism, and The Left & Right Strategies
Personally I think that anyone who profits from the misery of others is the most evil despicable kind of person.
I know. We just want to stay prosperous, but we are stepping on people to do it. Only God can help this bill get paid. I just hope He considers my needs as much as the needs of the Iraqi people.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction . "~Thugpreacha
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.” ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith "You may not like it, but the dog bites both ankles."~Tangle
(a little unfinished business, something I missed the other day)
Notice that police, fire prevention, armed services, public works, etc are ALL socialist programs.
That's quite a stretch, that would have to mean that any country with those services is a socialist country. That would make it hard to distinguish between all the different forms of government around the world.
In the U.S., fire, police, public works etc. are state and local issues. Each of those different municipalities gets to decide everything about how they're administered, how much of them to have, how much they cost etc. Those things vary greatly from state to state, and comparisons can be made in determining which ones are best, concerning decisions by people who might be deciding on where to live or where to move. Practically none of those types of programs are run by the federal government in any way. Because it wouldn't be constitutional. Not centrally made decisions, not socialism.
Make your argument supporting this statement. Not sure what you are trying to say, so not sure what way to destroy it.
The term "Democracy" isn't in U.S. founding documents, not the Declaration, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, any of that. The pledge of allegiance is to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, not the democracy for which it stands. There are several examples in U.S. foundings where a majority vote isn't used, a single president can veto something voted on by a majority of congress, and it takes a 3/5ths vote to override a veto. There are other examples. If you want to learn something, see this link;
You seem to have a bee in your pants about the climate issues.
That bee is in there for a reason. If the climate change subject was any more than a political power grab, it would have been introduced in a different way, it would be discussed in a different way, and any action to address it would be completely different than the actions (threats) that are discussed today.
The subject of global warming, (and climate change, both terms were used) originated decades ago, within the scientific community. But the scientific community didn't publicly introduce it, it was brought into the public eye in the 1990's not by any scientists, but by a biased, non scientist politician, Al Gore. Credentialed people within the scientific community made no forceful effort to supplement or revise what Gore had to say, at least until decades later. It started out only as global warming, and it underwent a pretty sudden, game-changing name change 10 or 15 years ago, to make it much more politically encompassing, and attention getting.
So that's red flag number one, it should have been introduced by science, not politics, and it shouldn't have undergone a name change.
Now to the discussion part, if it were honest, there would be practically no finger pointing at all. The more people there are on earth, the more human activity there is going to be. The earth's population has increased to about 7.7 billion today, from far less than 1 billion, when fossil fuel use first came into being about 100 years ago. The earth's increase in population in the past 100 years came largely because of the quality of life and human activity brought to us by fossil fuels. Even people in the most impoverished areas have it better, however slightly, because of fossil fuels. If climate change is caused by human activity, then every human alive today is partly responsible for it. Yet, when the poor are excluded from having to take responsibility for it, along with the idle, the very rich, poorer countries, it's quite clear that far less than 50% of the population will be commanded to foot the bill, in money and liberty, for guesses by the scientific community on methods to "fix" it.
Now for the actions to address it, have you ever noticed that the organizations that are most vehement against climate change, like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, are also the most vehement against nuclear power? It's clean and efficient, but it also can be dangerous. Those 2 organizations aren't the only ones of course, it seems that many who are most concerned about climate change can do a lightening fast 180 and suddenly become safety experts while relegating the climate to a secondary status. It reeks of politics more than climate.
Why is it that so many of the big advocates of climate change live lifestyles that are opposite of what they preach? Multiple large homes, yachts, private jets, big suv's. Wouldn't they be leading different lives if they believed what they preached? Or do they think of themselves as superior humans?
Now for the main bee-in-pants reason, we have a Democrat presidential candidate, Tom Steyer, who has said that he, if elected, will declare a presidential emergency on day one to address climate change. This is a billionaire, a hedge fund guy, who funded the start ups and current operation of coal burning energy plants. Here's a NY Times piece on him;
quote:As coal linked to Mr. Steyer’s previous investments burns in Asian power plants, he is spending a fortune earned from those investments to pursue a green agenda that would shutter similar plants in the United States.
Here's a perfectly similar scenario, a parable; The year is 1858. Slavery is rampant on southern plantations, and people and factory owners in the north are very angry about it. But they use slaves in their factories too! But their slaves don't have to work outside in the hot sun, so that makes it okay. Now a rich, northern factory owner that uses slaves, Tom Steyer, becomes president. He immediately declares a presidential emergency, and orders all slaves in the south to be freed, but doesn't mandate any northern ones, including his own to be freed. He'll do that later, on his own timeline, if he wants. He reserves the right to never free them if he doesn't want to. History tells us that this kind of arrogance can spark wars.
I'm sure Bernie Sanders, Warren, and others are very irritated that Steyer is threatening a presidential emergency, if elected. They are too of course, but they want it to be a surprise!
Do you think it is ok to pore toxins into the air we breathe?
Your country, and mine, have been doing it for over 100 years. Is this suddenly the time to mandate major economic changes, and strip liberty and money away from less than 50% of the population? For a goal that cannot be measured or accounted for, since it's a scientific fact that some types of climate change happen that aren't in any was associated with human activity? Is a war the answer? If the political left doesn't slow down with its propaganda and hate, a war is what we'll have.
New free market technology has always brought about societal changes in the past that overcome undesirable qualities of that era's time, and a changeover to renewable energy can happen in the same way if it's given a chance. When the automobile came on the scene and became commonplace 100 years ago, many people resisted, and it was perfectly legal. Horses were still used on many small farms in the 30's and 40's, and the people had the freedom to stay with horses if that's what they wanted. There weren't government mandated flatulence tests for horses - they didn't have license plates hanging on their asses. Horses are recreational possessions today, their usefulness in doing work is obsolete. But they're legal to have. The same could happen with today's older cars, if the government wouldn't meddle. It would be nice if people today didn't have to wonder so much about what government will meddle with next.
If you want to learn something quit being a condescending ass. There is something built into the US Constitution, because the Founders realized that what they decided may not work as well in the future. That is the amendment process. Amendments have made the USA a more democratic country. Of course the Founders did not support democracy. They were elitist, misogynist, white supremacists. The country changed and with those changes the Constitution was changed to reflect those changes. Your argument is meaningless and actually quite stupid, because we do not live under the Constitution of 1789, we live under the Constitution and laws of 2020. The founders feeling about Democracy are irrelevant. What is relevant is what is the meaning of the Constitution today.
But if you don't want to learn anything and just want to "destroy", then do your usual and look up some NY Times or Washington Post columns by young college boy liberals, and parrot them here
Actually I will study history and read about Constitutional law and not listen to morons that espouse hate for their fellow citizens.
Edited by Theodoric, : Decided to be the adult in the room
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
Re: LIBERAL is not a derogatory term, no matter how hard you try ...
Ya know what, conservatives, perhaps Republicans, are still more liberal than today's Democrats. All the Democrats spend their time doing is criticizing the opposition, pointing the finger, finding fault, giving no benefit of the doubt or having any other civilized notion. Inventing reasons to put restrictions on people, create an oppressive tyranny in which they tell the rest of us what to do. Death to our American freedoms. Nothing "liberal" about that whatever. If the word means anything it means freedom from exactly the kind of tyrannical conformism today's left wants to impose on us all, from social norms to economic opportunities.
Trump has brought jobs to the minorities, all the Democrats do is complain and call the opposition names. Trump has been acting within his constitutional authority at every turn, but the Democrats are either so malicious or so ignorant they accuse him of violating it. Probably both malicious and ignorant. This is not a "liberal" party by any sense of the term.
quote:That bee is in there for a reason. If the climate change subject was any more than a political power grab, it would have been introduced in a different way, it would be discussed in a different way, and any action to address it would be completely different than the actions (threats) that are discussed today.
The reasons are, of course, your political bias and a fear of personal inconvenience.
The scientific effort - including much serious work - is exactly how the problem should be identified and understood. It’s the objections that are more problematic.
And how should a serious problem that requires global political action be discussed differently and what different actions shou,d be taken to deal with it?
How would you propose to deal with the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere? How would you get agreement from China or India - or the rest of the world? How will you take account of the fact that the longer it is left the worse things will get? It is all very well to say that things should be done differently but proposing a different course of action that would actually be better is far from easy.