"you always wonder nowadays, don't you?"

rolling eyes really hard.

ouch.

In the late 80s, early 90s when I was traveling a lot between the U.S. and Canada, all the security guys doing passenger and carryon xrays at Pearson (Toronto) were Sikhs. I usually fly into Montreal nowadays and drive if I'm going to Toronto, but I sadly suspect that that's not the case anymore.

The last time I went through Vancouver (2002) there were a lot of Sikhs doing security. My mother recently flew to Vegas, and said the security people on both sides were far more polite than usual. Of course, being of dusky hue, she was delayed and questioned far more than ever before, but at least they harassed her politely.

Everybody here still loves Europe and the Aussies. But they seem to making it very clear what they're against without saying what they're FOR. What will they do against Saddam?

Once again, can I remind you that Australia and the UK (ie a country in Europe) are allies of the US in this war and have sent troops to Iraq? Personally, I don't think they should be there, but given that they are, please don't say that as nations we're not "doing" anything.

I understand it's an important religious issue but on the other hand it's a clear marker of Otherness.

It's a completely non-negotiable religious issue; like being circumcized for a Jew. Male Sikhs do not cut their hair, which implies very long hair and thus a turban or headscarf. (Some of the Sikhs at work wear a tight scarf with a big lump on the top containing the ponytail. It looks weird to me, but hey, not my religion.)

If you support the Bush administration's global political stance, there is still the question of how they achieve it. The Bush administration has chosen an attitude of "We're the biggest country, we can do anything we choose, and anybody who disagrees will be punished." We've threatened the Canadians in public. We've insulted the French in public. We've threatened the safety of Mexican nationals in the U.S. All of these are official public statements by Bush administration officials, never taken back.

Part of being a grownup is being able to disagree without being disagreeable. A civilized government says "We are sorry that our distinguished allies fail to see the urgency of our position".

We can throw our weight around without simultaneously insulting the people we're ignoring.

Cheney has been totally out of the company since 2001.

Apparently not entirely accurate. A mate sent an ICQ msg about the Halliburton bullshit and said Cheney is, "still receiving deferred compensation from them". If true, he stands to gain a significant boost to that compensation.

brenda ... your brother must be experiencing the same emotions as the majority of Muslims and anyone who looks even remotely Middle Eastern. Sucks, huh?

brenda ... your brother must be experiencing the same emotions as the majority of Muslims and anyone who looks even remotely Middle Eastern. Sucks, huh?

Very much like that, I expect.

Sorry to be so disruptive of the groupthink. And please don't think there isn't one--I remember a post in Natter, right before the war started, where the poster said that she couldn't sleep because "we were about to bomb hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children".

Now, did anybody call her on her BS? Did anybody laugh or ask her how long she'd been working for the Saudi media, or tell her to get psychiatric help, or even say what exactly led her to believe that the military of three very civilized countries was too evil or dumb not to target children in the first place?

Nope.

And that is why I have a realllly hard time taking political discussions here seriously. There's a few people, like Cindy and Wolfram and Gar and Victor, who try to steer the conversation from the endless rounds of Bush-bashing. And thank God for that.

But people, relax, chill, Bush might be gone in 22 months! And unless the war is a total disaster, which it isn't quite yet, Bush will win or not depending on what happens in the last four months before the election. That's what always happens. People who hold grudges or disagree with him won't vote for him anyway. And he won't mind at all--all he needs are his red states and a crop of uninspiring Democratic candidates.

Caroma, are you responding to something in particular? I don't often agree with you, but I like hearing your perspective. We do take things seriously around here, it's true (and for me that's a selling point) so people who disagree are going to respond to your posts.

Caroma--are you saying that bombing, even of mostly military sites, does not injure civilians? No one is that naive. I don't think anyone thought we would ever TARGET children--that's laughable. I don't think that poster meant that either--although I may be wrong, that's how I take that statement, anyway, and why I didn't respond. But civilians have been killed by our forces and will continue to be. I have deep moral qualms about this and I think you denigrate my reasoned opinion by calling it bashing. I believe you also have reasons for your opinion and I don't call you a war-monger, as that minimzes the thought you put into your ideas.

Saddam is a monster, but I think there were other ways to bring about his leaving power without the deaths of so many--and I am thinking of Iraqi civilians and of our own young men over there.