JerrySeinfeld

You mean besides the ongoing self-detonations and hatred of infidel pigs?

You're right - there aren't....thanks to those who fought against them in WARS.

As far as your comment about Iraq...To quote a fornmer CIA operative in the mid-east: anyone who thinks actions in one country in the mid-east are isolated and unrelated to the whole region is a fool and out of touch with reality. The second part of your argument is basically what I have been saying: the prosecution of the war has paid far too much attention to the western bleeding hearts. This whole business of helping them "rebuild", or tenderly avoiding the bombing of certain "civilian" areas is nonsense. Anywhere we know to be even remotely the source of insurgency has to be pulverised - flattened. That might even include parts of syria and especially Iran. I'm not talking about occupation. I'm talking about annihalation.

You're rigth: besides ending SLAVERY, NAZISM, COMMUNISM, FASCISM, war never solved anything...

Yes. this is straying from the topic. But yes, the object of going to war is to kill your enemy. ONly a stilted left wing self-loathing defeatist would think othewise.

Exactly, Scott. Your most important comment is that they would be troublesome powers today had we not pulverised them. This is precisly the lesson of the fist gulf war. And more broaly, the lesson of today's wstern mentality: we are self loathers. We don't go to war as nations with the intent to win. W send troops in harms way, then publically despis what we'e doing, then argue about how best to rush to defeat. Big difference. We need the proper outlook on war: we ar thee to win victory, to thottle the underlying ideology which was behind the 9-11 declaration o war on the west. SO let's do it! SURGE I SAY, SURGE!

Executions ar a penalty. That's why it's called "the death penalty". You kill somon with aggravating circumstances, you die. The choic is ultimately the criminal's. If he doesn't want ot be executed, he shouldn't commit capital murder.

There is a big differnce between "threatening somones life" and being aware of the consequences of your actions.

To me this issue is alot like "gay marriage" on a global scale, where nations symbolize individuals and their policy on capital punishment symbolizes sexual orientation. The qustion is: ar nations free to have their own policy on capital punishment? yes. Should other nations try to impose their beliefs on those nations? You decide.

And it has every right now to as well.

Let me clarify. We pulverise. They rebuild.

Your point is well made. But keep in mind, while the Canadian government has the right to ask the US to change it's mind, so too does the Canadian government have the right NOT to ask the US government to change it's mind. Many people would concede that to some extent the government has a "responsibility" towards it's citizens. However many reasonable people would also question where that responsibility begins or ends. Is it absolute? That's up for debate. For those of us on the right, we place less emphasis on the government taking resposibility for our actions and more emphasis on taking personal resposibility for your actions, be that in the health care realm, economically, or in this case, law and order. Many reasonable people, who, contrary to the broadbrushers out there like higgly, aren't raving lunatics, believe that by committing and becoming convicted of capital murder in a foreign land, with full knowledge of the adult consequences, the argument for your home government standing up for your benefit becomes significantly weaker. The short version? Many reasonable people don't think killers deserve a break - even if the government has the right to ask for one their behalf.

Not explicitly. But they are saying that Canadians should not be equal before the law in foreign lands and should not be held to the same standard that everyone else in that country is held to. And they are saying that it should be government policy to lobby for this preferential treatment. And they aren't providing any logical reasons for this, other than "this is how the liberals did it".

Not a bad point. But the issue at hand right now is whether or not Canada, as a matter of policy, will lobby foreign governments to provide Canadian Citizens with preferential treatment before that countries law. Har[pers gov't says no. They have that perogative, they have used it and that's that.

It was a period when the west's primary enemy was the USSR. That was right after the period when they were our ALLY!!! Politics make strange bedfellows. Sure - you'd like it if we all lumped the complex events of the 20th century into one big broad brush (you love thos big broad brushes eh?) called "american foreign policy wouldn't ya there scamp? Now that I've squashed your red herring we can get back to talking about troop surges smashing the enemy of TODAY. The point was, today's wars are overanalyzed and fought with bleeding hearts. We need to go back to the strategies of WWII: pulverise, then build from scratch!!! SURGE I SAY!!!

no - but I do see an attempt at setting up a straw man.

lol - apparently you haven't heard of the "cold war"?

Sounds like garden variety raving anti americanism

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Heck during WWII we even befriended the USSR!!!!

Research? Your "research" has a nuclear arms race starting because of a recent event. If you actually had done any research, you'd know that the Iran / Syria / Hezbollah axis (Iran specifically) has been working toward nukes for alot longer than that. I rest my case.

Exactly, AW. It's a simple as that. The left wingnuts will try to bamboozle and morally tap dance their way into thinking they MUST be right (after all, it's the evil Stephen Harper!). But the law of the land is the law of the land - you gotta live by it. Most importantly, though, it is the perogative of the government not to lobby for commutation of a death sentence - and the sitting government of the day has that perogative. If you disagree - too bad. Get elected and change it.

ohhhh - I see what your doing now. Forgive me - I mistakenly thought you were making a point about the topic at hand - ie. the Canadian Government's "outlandish" policy to allow host countries to apply the law of the land to all capital murderers equally. Forgive me - now I see you're making a stilted broad brush generalization about an entire society! Gee I thought lefty lib wingnuts were above such non-progressive improprieties.

And I have yet to see any evidence in your posts that you have done anything but gargle the spoonfed drivel that is fed to you by leftwing media nuts.

The west. Civilization. Societies that don't shoot women in soccer stadiums. Societies that don't kill people for being gay. Take your pick.

Ya - that too. ...or Flordia too. They execute fairly frequently down there too. Basically don't commit capital murder in a state that has the death penatly. Then you won't have to worry about this darned policy.