• Mr. Ahmadinejad consolidates his domestic political power and wins support among several countries caught in America's cross hairs by pointing out that Washington accepts the nuclear status of Pakistan - which it needs on its side in the war on terror - while opposing Iran's program, which Iran insists is for power-generation only.
• Mr. Chávez, espousing a philosophy of "democratic socialism" in any international forum that will listen, accuses the United States of trying to overthrow his own democratically elected government. He fires up sympathetic crowds by branding "US imperialism [as] our real enemy."
Yet for all their heated rhetoric, the two leaders have a vision for the world, one that seeks to end the "sole superpower" reality. Beyond simply opposing America's robust exercise of power - a sentiment increasingly found in the developing world, especially - their aim is to join political forces to provide a significant counterweight in the international arena.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060210/ts_csm/apopulists
[Why can't that be Canada's aim as well? Why are other countries doing this? -- NSay]
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on February 14, 2006]
Note: http://news.yahoo.com/s...

Ok
enough levity
I was judging by ow voting habits
---
Nothing in this World makes People so Afraid as the Influence of an Independant Minded Individual.
Attrib. Al EINSTEIN
Lets be honest with ourselves. We might not like, maybe even hate much of US foreign policy, we might agree that a single global superpower is a bad situation - power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely - we might even tell the US to kiss our collective asses when they try to interfere with Canadian domestic issues, but lets face it - "the West" will be tarred with the same brush when push comes to shove. And push is rapidly approaching shove. So "what is the best course of action" is a very germane question. Do any of us really believe that we can do anything to insulate ourselves from a global conflict should that arise (which appears likely)? I have said before that we should look closely at Sweden as a role model in some ways (maybe pass on the conscription), but in reality even a declaration of neutrality would not be enough to keep us from being dragged kicking and screaming into whatever major eruption becomes the next world war. So indeed, what is the best course of action? For starters I believe that foreign policy should be focused as much as possible on staying the hell out of other people's business. Invest heavily in alternative energy sources, pass laws that would allow shutting down exports of natural resources like oil, nat. gas and energy so that in a crisis self sufficiency is possible. Stop buying into the notion that the west has a responsibility to bring civilization and democracy to the rest of the world. Because when the bombs start falling we are only a hair's breadth away from becoming the American auxilliary forces, for what its worth.
Thankfully, as far as I am aware, no Canadian media worth noting has considered this something worth fanning the flames of.
It's like yelling fire in a theatre, you can do it* but the repercussions are a bitch.
*Hey, I know it's illegal but then again jail is a repercussion isn't it?
This is how I presently see it and solely for the sake of discussion
when I see the word ‘we’ I believe I am included and that sets up a conundrum because, as I see it, I have no say in the decision the country I was born in and am a citizen of takes.
Please be clear, E, I do share concerns in the directions taken and am unable, as a private citizen, to do anything but voice concern.
What if anything do you see can be done?
---
Nothing in this World makes People so Afraid as the Influence of an Independant Minded Individual.
Attrib. Al EINSTEIN
and while i was away using 'word' to do spelling and other time consuming functions two good post appear LOL
---
Nothing in this World makes People so Afraid as the Influence of an Independant Minded Individual.
Attrib. Al EINSTEIN
Ahmadinejad equated with Hugo Chavez as world-threatening
evildoers??
Bwwaaahhhhhh! I can't take it any more ... !
I truly believe that the modern version of a "world war" is on the not too distant horizon. It might be about this leader of that country or so and so, but the bottom line is that it boils down to energy and oil. If Bush has ever said anything intelligent ( oh how I hate to admitt it) it was that the US MUST break its addiction and dependancy on foreign oil. God help us all if they don't.
On that topic, how about the possibility of Canada importing nat. gas from Russia and possibly becoming the distributor of said gas to the US. On top of that, the tar sands (environmental concerns, of course), but the point being that Canada could become a power broker. I for one can't think of a better country to hold such power, regardless of which party forms the government. If we can pull this off it could be tantamount to diverting WWIII and saving a ton of asses in the process. If we can take and keep the moral high road, well who knows, we might all be eating banik and loving every minute of it.
We stop exporting our oil and use it ourselves?
It is OUR oil after all.
Let the oil addicted US twist in the wind I say. They'd do exactly the same to us given the chance.
this identifies the reason why the David Emerson affair is so
troubling.
Collectively, we understand that the Stephen Harper
Conservatives are much closer to George W. Bush than the
Liberals were.
To have resoundingly voted to keep a Harper Conservative OUT of
Vancouver-Kingsway, then finding that a Harper Conservative
had highjacked the riding ... the message here is that Canada is
one step closer to Deep Integration with Bush's U.S.A..
Emerson is about all that other important stuff about violating
Charter Rights, therefore unconstitutional and unlawful. But it's
also about sovereign survival. David Emerson provides a
terrifying reminder of how easy it is for Canada to fall into the U.S.
Empire never to be seen again.