Rovik

It's obvious by these attacks on Layton and the NDP, that the right-wingers are afraid that Layton may persuade enough of these "dumb" non-committed voters or "dumb" soft-Conservative voters not to vote Conservative, which may cost the Conservatives a possible majority in the next election or perhaps even losing power altogether. And my goodness if you listen too what some of these right-wingers say, one would think that Layton had horns, a tail and pitchfork. They exaggerate or twist what the NDP are saying and resort to name calling such as "Taliban Jack." Layton must be making these right-wingers very nervous indeed for them to spend so much time and attention attacking him and the NDP. And I agree with the poster that many things need to be fixed but I feel that the Conservative agenda will make things things worse not better. Of course, "Bush's Boy Steve," may surprise me but sadly, I doubt it. Oh my, I have to apologize for that name calling....the venom of some of the right-wingers here must be catching.

For someone who fancies himself as "smarter than the average bear," this is not what I would call intelligent discourse, in fact it borders on insulting and name-calling. If I or any others came on here and said the same of Harper and the Conservatives, I would be attacked and called a troll in the nth degree. First, did Layton ever say that the 9/11 disaster was in fact orchestrated by Bush? So trying to make that link, even indirectly is quite frankly...sad. And how do you know that 100% of those 22% would vote NDP. Some of those 22%, heaven forbid, might even be Conservatives. Second, many people would argue that Harper's ditching of Kyoto is a gigantic-dumb move that risks the planet's future and is appeasement to Big Oil, though personally I would call the move misguided. In regard to the softwood lumber agreement, I believe that any agreement that allows the Americans to keep $1 Billion dollars of money that is rightfully Canada's (even the WTO and NAFTO agree) is suspect. I won't even touch upon the other aspects of the deal that makes it questionable. And just because one is pro-Kyoto and against the softwood trade agreement doesn't make one automatically Anti-American. And going back to your calling 22% of the population dumb. There was a poll done by CNN that asked if people believed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. 43% responded yes, even though there has not one single thread of proof that there was a link and in fact, with Saddam's dislike of Al Queda, seems very unlikely. The sad thing is the Bush administration, for the longest time, ran with this and used it as one of its justifications to attack Iraq even without proof. Do i believe that 43% of the US's population is dumb? No...just misguided.

You're asking the wrong question. The question is, would we rather fight them there or in the streets of Toronto, Calgary and Montreal. Just ask any Israeli. I would categorize that as alarmism. The Taliban, though against Western values, have never planned to attack the West. They only wanted power in Afghanistan. You are using the same logic as Bush when he says that if they leave Iraq, the terrorists would come to the US next. The funny thing is that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda and in fact considered them hostile.

I hope you are right about "working for peace until the enemy was defeated," because it doesn't seem to be happening in Iraq and the danger in Afghanistan is that it could eventually mirror Iraq (I Hope it doesn't though.) Canada has been in Afghanistan for awhile now, and as far as I'm concerned that have done their duty. If another NATO country (that's not in Afghanistan) wants to come in and take over Canada's role than that's their business, but seeing that NATO is having problems getting members to provide troops, I would be surprised if another country would want to take Canada's role. And regards to "pulling out." Didn't people say that the Communists would sweep the world once the US pulled out of Vietnam. Guess what? Communism didn't and in fact, is not as strong today as it was back then. And the real embarrasing thing for the US in that war was that they stayed in the war longer than they should have. It would have prevented needless deaths on both sides if they pulled out sooner. And i don't think the Canadians leaving in Feb 2007 would be pulling out because they would be completing the original mandate. I believe the Conservatives pulled a fast one by rushing that two year extension through the house

Yes. there are 17 nations but several have indicated that they only want to situated in safer parts of Afghanistan and in fortified bases such as the Germans. Seems like they don't want to send their troops in harm's way. And people must remember that while the Taliban are baddies, they are not baddies that have ever attacked or had notions to attack the West (at least before the war.) However, they were guilty of harbouring Al Queda, a terrorist organization and were rightly punished because of this. But if one's intention now was to destroy terrorist's training bases, then Afghanistan is not currently the place. In fact, it would be best to go after Pakistan if that was your intention. Quite the coincedence...I feel the same way.

I'm sure there are many Taliban who are cold blooded killers but not all, for many of the reasons you mention about whay people joined the Nazis. Another example, is the IRA. Many people would have said that the IRA are a bunch of cold blooded killers who would never put their arms down but they did and there was a negotiated end The coalition could use the Pashtun as middle men to negotiate with the moderates in the Taliban, so in a way the coalition would be trying to persuade the moderate Taliban to drop thgeir support..indirectly.

Yes, but it was a very different type of mission; a much more "peacekeeping" one. Canada lost 28 soldiers in almost 30 years, while we have already lost more than that in about 4 years in Afghanistan. And in Afghanistan, we are actively going after the Taliban, while in Cyprus we only used force when attacked. Yes, many Afghans are not fond of either side but on the other hand, after 5 years of Coalition forces, the Taliban can still count many Afghans (especially in the south) for support. And your mention of Pakistan brings up another issue. How do the coalition forces stop the infllux of Pakistani Taliban without actually going into Pakistan? And we know that the coalition forces won't go into Pakistan because Pakistan is an American ally. I believe you would be surprised, because I think it's more than a marginal few. Well if the scenarios for peacekeeping has changed than procedures shoulld be adapted to reflect the changes and this would be dependant on the situation on the ground. And I do believe that the UN peacekeepers should have an aggressive role only to protect themselves or to prevent genocide from occurring such as what happened in Rwanda. One of the main problems in Rwanda was that fact that requests to send more peacekeepers to Rwanda was denied by the UN security council, namely by the US and France. The Americans and the rest of the permanent members of the security council have to much power with their ability to veto and this needs to be changed to make it a much more fair playing field.

First, because there were insufficient troops to take advantage of the route of the Taliban. Second, now that they have been reinforced, they are moving out into areas the Taliban have resettled to, to areas they have not been challenged in for some years. It is not a matter of things getting that much worse, but of the NATO forces now moving into Taliban strongholds which were largely untouched. By your logic, the American-led mission should have brought in enough solders to reinforce 5 years ago? If they had, perhaps we could have seen a lot less suffering in the last 5 years. And the question remains, how come they didn't bring in the required manpower 5 years ago? The military could be used to protect our sovereignty such as troops in the far north or to prevent genocide from happening such as what happened in Rwanda. My goodness, resorting to insults now, I must have hit a nerve. And you must forgive me, I didn't realize that you were the world's foremost expert in the Afghanistan Conflict. Guess whatever the rest of us say must be wrong if it doesn't fit your views

So going by what you are saying, every member of the Taliban are cold blooded killers? How about the Nazis? Was every nazi of 40s Germany a cold blooded killer? Here is a interesting artcile that will explain why there is hope for the Taliban, and why they are not like Al Queda and why there is hope to bring some of them over. Why The Taliban Aren't Terrorists

And how do we keep Afghanistan secure? By keeping coalition forces in there perpetually? And is Afghanistan really much more secure (outside the larger centres) after almost 5 years of coalition forces? I'm sure that ArmyGuy is sincere and really believes what he says, but his is only one soldier's opinion. I've talked to a friend's brother who served over there and he is pessimistic about what will happen. He said that out in the villages, the locals support the Taliban wholeheartedly and they kept their eyes on any local that came close. He also mentioned that there were many soldiers who didn't like the direction of the Canadian military but they would never come out in public and say what was on their mind, because if they did, they would be marginalized and isolated. And no matter what role the military has, people will always respect the soldiers as it should be. The NDP believes in peacekeeping, which in my mind is a form of militarism. One can't compare Afghanistan to WW2. In WW2, the enemy had one of the great military powers of its time and wanted to control the world. They even had subs off Canada's Atlantic coast. In Afghanistan, we have a small ragtag group whose technology doesn't even come close to the coalition. To even consider comparing the two is really pushing it.

It saddens me that when someone doesn't support the "mission," they are often portrayed as not supporting the soldiers and unpatriotic. This is something that the Republicans in the US have been good at during the Iraqi war and now many Conservatives and some Liberals are doing now. It's a sad ploy to try to embarrass people to accept the situation in Afghanistan. Just because you are against a mission does not mean you are against the soldiers. In fact, many who are against the situation in Afghanistan support the soldiers and the Canadian military wholeheartedly. They are against what the government has mandated the soldiers to do and realize that the soldiers are only doing their jobs. I might be more for it if it was making a difference, but it doesn't seem to be (especially outside the larger centres.) It's funny,I remember on CNN a few years ago, they interviewed a soldier who said they were making a difference but fast- forward to now and we see a civil war in Iraq, thousands continue to die, people's living standards have dropped, not increased and the terrorists have a bigger sway in Iraq then they did before the war. Personally, there is a couple of things that bother me about this. First, the fact that Canadian's role has changed from a peacekeeping role to a more aggressive killing role which put them in harm's way and risk heavier casualities then in times past. Second is how the Conservative government pushed the extension of the mssion without much of a debate. They knew it would be harder to past once the original mandate had finished, because by then, people would see the heavy casualties and there would be more opposition to it. In my opinion, what the Conservatives did was tricky and underhanded and done to appease the Americans.

I disagree. If enough of the moderate leadership (and their followers) are willing to compromise, this would put tremendous pressure on the extremist leadership within the organization. If they ignore it or seek to reprimand the moderates, they risk alienating a lot of the taliban's support in the country and a fractured and weakened Taliban Doesn't matter if the group is a democracy or not, the principles remain the same no matter the type of group. Your analogy doesn't really represent this situation. An better analogy (in my opinion) would be if Harper put forward a proposal to change the EI system that would make it harder to receive EI and those who do would, receive less money than before. And the result being the Atlantic caucus coming together and coming out in public saying the changes would be unacceptable. Harper would have to revise his proposal or face a backlash. See my first statement.

Or ever, if one goes by the Afghanistan's rocky history. Just ask the Russians and the Brits. Well the mission is not going smoothly after almost 5 years, actually it seems to be getting worse. Why I wonder? And if the Afghanistan mission is ever completed then what? Go into Iran? Syria? North Korea? Sudan? Somalia? or maybe even Venezula or Indonesia if they get bad enough? Maybe you are right or maybe you are not. You would be definately right if things were going great for the coalition forces, but they are not. Their current techniques are not working and sometimes you have to look at the alternatives even if some of them are not very appetizing. And if they negotiated with the Taliban and it ended in disarray, the Coalition could turn around to the world and the Afghan people and say that they tried

In a perfect world, the coalition forces would wipe out every Taliban individual to the last. In a perfect world, the Afghan people would help the coalition forces every step of the way and would celebrate the end of the Taliban. In a perfect world, the drug trade would have decreased, not increased since the coalition forces have been there. In a perfect world, all people of different faiths in Afghanistan will be treated with respect. But guess what...it's not a perfect world. Many of Afghan's population still support the Taliban. And even with the new Afghan govt., there is still sharia law and a citizen who converted to Christanity was almost put to death and again that is with the new Afghan govt. and the presence of the coalition forces in the country. It was only through intense international pressure that this man was saved. With the coaltion forces in Afghanistan, the opium trade has increased, not decreased like one would have expected. and the coalition forces have dealt with warlords, who in many instances are just as bad or worse than the Taliban. I'm not saying that the Taliban are good; they are most definately not. Their stance against women's rights and the rights of non-Islams is appalling but if the coalition forces can deal with the more tolerant leadership of the Taliban (if there are any of course) and offer them amnesty or a small role in the govt. (a govt. that already supports sharia law mind you) and the understanding that it can't go back to how it was under the Taliban, the coalition forces may make some headway; because right now that doesn't seem too be happening, even after 5 years. And to those who don't believe in moderate Taliban, within just about every group, there are people with different stances or different ideals, for example in this case, a moderate may lean toward diplomacy and tolerance while an extremist leans towards violence and believes there is no middle ground. And don't try to tell me that all Conservatives are the same, or Liberals or the NDPers...they're not and to try to tar all people in a particular group as the same is simply wrong.

We're not talking about another Taliban regime, we're talking about a moderate government which may include a minor amount of former moderate Taliban. The extremist Taliban would never listen and should be squeezed out of the picture by discrediting them and one way to do this is to isolate them from the moderates.

My goodness, I can't believe how naive some of you come across as. Let's face it, there will bo no peace in ALL of Afghanistan except for maybe the cities (and even then) without the cooperation of the taliban. I'm not talking about all the taliban but the moderates. The taliban have too much influence in Afghanistan (unfortunate but true.) And a lot of Canadians obviously agree with Jack Layton, going by the Globe and Mail poll in which 62% (26478/43039) support what Jack Layton is saying (check out the poll section on the Globe and Mail site) It's funny how some of you attack Layton, all the while it's you who have unrealistic views

Ridiculous. Nothing Harper could say or do would "win over these people". Had he made an appearance, it would have been called a shameless, cynical, transparent ploy to appeal to curry support among people he doesn't support at all. Harper could attend a million AIDS conferences and gay parades and wear a red ribbon on his lapel and rainbow colored shoes and visit every drug treatment facility in Canada, and it wouldn't change the fact that these people hate him and will always view him as their enemy. The gay community and those who are upset at Harper for not attending are blasting him for the same reason he gets blasted for not attending the annual Gay Day Parade in Toronto. Are they mad because they want him to pretend he supports them? No. They're mad because once again he didn't show up in person to give them their proverbial pound of flesh. And they're vocal about it because as political enemies of Stephen Harper, they're using whatever means are available to publicly attack him. I'm sure they probably would have been happier if he'd attended in person because the spectacle of him being booed off stage would have been a much bigger political opportunity to capitalize on than his no-show. This "controversy" isn't about Harper providing symbolic support, it's about dedicated opponents of Harper using the event to attack him. -k I'm not talking about people at the conference who won't be swayed in their opposition in all things Harper; I'm talking about average Canadians who don't have extreme views (either way) but are looking for signs of a kinder, gentler Harper (and the Conservatives,) though it would take away some of the ammo his opponents have to throw at him (in this instance they can't say that Harper didn't show up and what that may or may not mean.)

C'mon folks...this has nothing to do with the in and outs of AIDS but how potential Conservative voters might be swayed by an appearance (or non-appearance) of Harper at this conference. Harper's appearance would have been purely symbolic but it may have given the impression that the Conservatives cared for those suffering with AIDS and many people (even those not directly affected by AIDS) would be impressed. This was a golden opportunity for Harper to win over these people, but he missed the opportunity and instead may turn away some of these potential voters away from the Conservatives. And folks, there is a difference between sending the GG, an appointed position to having the ELECTED leader of Canada attend the conference. I'm sure most people would say that having the PM there would have greater importance than having the GG there.

Here's how I see it. It's the biggest AIDS conference in the world this year and it's been hosted in Canada, yet the ELECTED leader of Canada doens't think it important enough to attend. Yet, there are many powerful people and ex-politicians that believe it is importnat enouigh to attend and that means going to another country to attend it. We are talking people like Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and the ex president of Ireland (can't remember her name.) Let's face it, people from around the world will get the impression that Canada doesn't think that Canada considers the AIDS dilema a big deal when its own leader doesn't even show up. And remember, this is a international conference so we are looking at the international impact of AIDS, not just the impact on Canada. So we are talking about all AIDS victims, from the hemophiac in Toronto who contacted AIDS through a blood infusion to the sex worker in Nigeria who contracted it from unprotected sex. Harper's trip of north to avoid the conference is a mistake and will hit him especially in urban areas. In fact with this and his staunch support of Isreal in Lebanon, people will see that he is in fact not the centrist that he was pretending to be in the last election

Actually it is Israel's "measured response". Canada does not have the capacity to bomb Middle East targets, no matter how much you would somehow like to blame an oil slick off the coast of Lebanon on Harper. Actually, he's commenting on Harper's blanket support for Israel by saying that their reaction was not overboard and calling it a "measured response" Of course, this "measured response" includes bombing UN personnel, destroying Red Cross ambulances, killing innocents, obliterating Lebanon's infrastructure such as bridges and roads which hurts Lebanon's economy more than anything else, bombing Beirut's airport, preventing non-residents from fleeing the country and so on and so on. It's plain overkill and it's inflaming Arab moderates who did not support Hezbellah. Let's face it, Hezbellah has been doing pretty bad things as well (though not on the scale of Isreal) and should be disbanded and yes, Israel has a right to defend itself, but what it is doing now is overkill and almosts borders on arrogance as it disregards the UN and has not be quick to provide safe passage for people fleeing the country or to get relief supplies to the innocents who need it. Israel should have been more selective in its response instead of the blanket response it has used, killing both the bad guys, innocents and anyone else (such as UN personel) who gets in the way. It almost makes the Israelis look as bad as the Hezbellah (of course they are not as bad since they are not psuhing for a nation's destruction such as Hezbellah). I believe that Harper's support of Israel in this matter will backfire on him. He should have criticized both sides (Israel and Hezbellah) on how things were turning out. He will lose support big-time in Quebec and urban areas in Canada as well as provide fodder for the parties (Libs, NDP, and BQ) in the next election campaign. Overall, his reaction to the whole thing has not been good. Many people will see him as supporting and advocating whatever the Americans say.

Ontario 24 seats-12,541,400 people Quebec 24 seats-7,598,100 people New Brunswick 10 seats -752,000 people Nova Scotia 10 seats -937,900 people Prince Edward Island 4 seats -138,100 people Newfoundland and Labrador 6 seats -516,000 people Alberta 6 seats -3,256,800 people British Columbia 6 seats-4,254,500 people Manitoba 6 seats-1,177,600 people Saskatchewan 6 seats -994,100 people Northwest Territories 1 seat -43,000 people Nunavut 1 seat -30,000 people Yukon 1 seat -31,000 people Total 105 seats Canada 32,270.5 people I don't think so. Right now Atlantic Canada has more seats for it's population and size than any other region of the country. If anything they should be giving up some of their seats in the senate,or the government should increase the seats for some of the other provinces. That's interesting. I didn't really know the makeup of the Senate in seats. Seems like the regions are fairly equal in seats. I believe that population shouldn't matter in regards to the senate. The different regions should have an equal amount of seats, that way, a region or regions with the most people doesn't dominate. But its seems even with the relative equality of the current senate, it doesn't seem to function very well. Perhaps because of partisanship within the Senate. Well, perhaps it should be abolished completely then

If you want to stay in Canada, here is a trade: -> you get 100% resource and coastal control in exchange for -> Canada cancels 100% transfer payments Does that sound reasonable? No, you do not get more seats in the Parliament. Why you ask for more representation, I do not know. Can't see it happening because the Federal govt. won't go for that. I didn't suggest more representation for Atlantic Canada in the Parliament.

This is a very valid demand. I agree with it. However, what else do Atlantic Canadians deserve? If Canada separated from the Atlantic provinces (kicked them out and forced them to be either independent countries or one Atlantica country or some combination) what would Atlantic-Canadians do differently? I believe that Atlantic Canada has recently done very positive steps in regards to turning the region around. Contrary to what many people believe, Atlantic Canada is business friendly (see my last post for details.) First, Atlantic Canada must be aggressive in it's dealing with business. Don't just accept a deal because it offers jobs and short-term benefits. Maximize the benefits of a deal long-term (if possible) and maximize the deal for the entire region and its people. Very good deals should be had with companies in sectors that are making billions and billions of dollars in profit. Next, stop sending raw resources elsewhere to be processed. Process and manufacture within the region and the region will get the jobs and cash not elsewhere. As I have mentioned before, this has been a problem for years and has helped other regions in cash and job creation and this trend needs to be reversed. And sadly, though it will bode well for the economic situation in the region, small communities that rely on fishery and in some cases forestry are disappearing as they are no longer self-sustaining. The govt. will only go so far to save these communities and as the young people leave, the communities will age (people) until the communities are no more. Some of the bigger fishing communities will survive and some communities that can take advantage of tourism and aquaculture or some kind of small industry will survive but that's about it. As these communities fade away, the consequence is that govt. will not longer have to spend money to maintain them (infrastructure, energy, ferry services, roads and so on) and many of these remote communities do require a lot of money to survive. I'm sad that this is happening because part of our culture is dying along with these communities but unfortunately it's the sign of our modern times and the result of the mismanagement of the fishery (which many say will never return to what it once was) If Atlantic Canada did indeed become a country within itself, they would have more autonomy over their resources. This would shutout Canada from making decisions that often do not favour the region. In addtion, the Atlantic (country) would have control of most of the 200 mile coastal region. They could use this to their advantage as Canada would have virtually no Atlantic zone (other then the St. Lawrence.) And the region could better push its own custodial management, unlike Canada, wouldn't be afraid to offend other countries and risk trade agreements that might impact on Ontario or the West. Now, I believe that Atlantic Canada should stay within Canada but Atlantic Canada needs to treated with a more equal footing within the Confederation. With our limited numbers of seats, we don't have the political clout of Ontario, Quebec or the West and its hard to get our voice heard. Perhaps a senate with a equal amount of seats for the different regions may be the way to go.

Seems to me that Alberta's 25% royalties after production costs are recovered is a not what I call a low royalty. And it is important that the province gets the best deal possible through negotiations with companies because we all know that the companies best interests are not the provinces and its people but to the shareholders of the company. Newfoundland had to fight tooth and nail to get a smelter build within the Inco deal (an experimental one has been built but not a fully functional one) but sadly the company has an out if the smelter is deemed unfeasible (due to unworkable technologies and the like) and while we're waiting for the smelter to be completed, the raw ore is being shipped to Ontario and Manitoba providing jobs to workers in those provinces as well as putting cash in those provinces' coffers. Yes, there should be some give and take between the provinces and the corporations but the provinces must be careful not to give-in to the big corporations too much to avoid getting to little in return. Yes, jobs will be created and there would be short-term benefits but what about the long-term. Will they do what the forestry companies are doing now and demand concessions from its workers, government to give them huge power breaks or up and leave if they don't get their way. As hard as it is to believe, but there are plenty of rich people here as well. Is there a study that correlates rich people with rich provinces and how about the per capita for all the provinces. In regards to business taxes and incentives for business to work here; as far as I have read, Atlantic Canada is doing well in this regard, especially lately. Here's a few excerpts from the following link Atlantic Canada: Traditional + Emerging Industries =

The secret is too manage the resources well. For example with the fishery, it should be managed by people that know it and live right next to the resource, not by beaucrats in Ottawa who don't have a clue. And in regards to developing resources, a province must get the best deal possible under the circumstances, allow long term benefits for the province and its people and have provisions if circumstances change. Alberta obviously did that with the oil years ago and are now reaping the benefits just as Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is trying to do now. And lets' face it, the oil companies are raking in billions and billions of dollars in profit, so NL and NS should get the best possible deal and hold out if necessary because we all know that oil is a non-renewable resource and the benefits will only last so long. Newfoundland, for too long was suckered by companies, because Newfoundland was only looking at job creation (and in some cases, short-term,) Often, the raw resources (fish, paper, etc.) was shipped to mainland Canada and elsewhere, where the money was really made in value-added activities such as manufacturing. It's almost like Newfoundland getting $0.20 per fish, then shipping away where it was processed elsewhere, then the processed fish, ready to be sold to customers, was worth $10. The big money was being made elsewhere. This practise is slowly changing by it's still a big problem