BHS

Since when has the Republic of Ireland been involved in terrorism? I said, they didn't do anything more constructive than sending in the tanks, to resolve the issues in Northern Ireland during the worst of the troubles, between the years of 1972 and 1999. In 1999, after the signing of the Good Friday accord, the IRA and the UDF and all of the other yahoos agreed to lay down arms in exchange for being allowed to participate in local government. The Good Friday Accord of 1998 was the resolution that was needed, not the "policing" and governing from a distance that had gone on before. Give it a minute to to let it sink in, before you hit the reply button.

Failure looks something like the WTC crumbing into lower Manhattan, after years of lesser attacks (including the 1993 attack on the WTC) were ignored. Bin Laden has also claimed, repeatedly, that it is our way of life and our failure to live up to Sharia standards that fuels his jihad. So what's your point again?

Have you ever seen what "policing" amounts to in Northern Ireland? It's hardly different than how the Israelis go into the Palestinian regions. Furthermore, the British didn't need to "invade" Northern Ireland because they've owned the place since the 1600s. And your conjecture that they "worked" to resolve the problem during the worst years of the troubles is laughable - between 1972 and 1999 tthe people of NI were governed directly from London and had little say in how the conflict could be dispelled. Hardly like a war at all, eh?

Nice. You list a bunch of rinky-dink one man shows hither thither and yon', and try to compare this to the obviously pro-Liberal bias of the fucking CBC. Get real.

Still blinkered. You make the false assumption that there will never again be a enemy nation capable of launching such weapons, or that all future nations with this capability will be our allies, or that missiles will never again be used in any case. How can you know this? The eventual goal of the Missile Shield program is a system that detects and destroys missiles within seconds of a launch, so your scenario of subs launching weapons fast enough to beat the system is moot. And really, it just argues against all the other points you're making about missiles being obsolete. How is it, then, that the Americans, with a similar standard of living, have managed to maintain their military preparedness? Oh, right. They didn't opt for the third world health care scheme that we did. Makes a big difference. Our military preparedness started to slide long before 1990. The reason it was NOT needed was that we were happy to rely completely on the Americans for our protection from the Soviets. Which was my original point. And it's true, unless you think the Soviets were all puppy dogs and ice cream and wouldn't have dreamt of enslaving us. I fail to see where you're going with the computer virus factoid. That's an interesting take, though, the Afghanistan theory of Soviet demise. I haven't heard that one before, possibly because it's so friggin implausible. The Russians went into Afghanistan of their own accord and could have pulled out at any time. True, it was a long and costly war for them, but they didn't have to fight it. Saying the Russians were brought down due to their failure in Arghanistan is like saying the Americans were nearly destroyed by their efforts in Vietnam. The Russians are in Chechnya right now, same prolonged nightmare as Afghanistan was, and I highly doubt that it will play anything more than a token role in whatever fate history has in store for them. True, there are many other factors that played a part in the break up of the Soviet Union, including Solidarity and the price of tea in China. But it's just stupid to say the American efforts to contain the Soviets militarily and dominate them economically didn't have the most impact. Even the former Soviet apartchiks will tell you that.

Do you work for Warren Kinsella? Never mind. Don't want to be opening myself up for spurious legal action. So where did all the cash go? Was the auditor general hallucinating? Seems to me a lot of money poured into Quebec that can't be accounted for. I wouldn't go so far as to accuse anyone of theft, but really the only alternative is monumental incompetence. So which is it? To go one further, let's review the Grandmere Inn debacle. A reporter uncovers what he believes is evidence that PM Cretien's personal holding company was owed 20 grand by the guy he later arranged a loan for with the BDC, a loan that had previously been turned down because it didn't meet the BDC's criteria. This is a clear conflict of interest, which the PMO denied by stating that the document in the journalist's possession was a forgery. So we're left with two alternatives: either the PM used his influence to ensure money owed to him could be repaid, or someone was trying to frame the Prime Minister of Canada for doing the same. The RCMP reviewed the situation, decided everything was cool, no harm no foul, and let the case drop. I guess the either/or situation was a false dilemma. I just wish they'd clue the rest of us in on what's really going on. Maybe you can fill me in. So, do you I'm unreasonable for coming to negative assumptions about the people you're defending? I'm not saying they're cheats, and liars, and theives, just that they look, quack and waddle that way.

Y'all do realize that if any of the Provinces secede, it's only a matter of time before we're all subsumed by the States? Actually, there's a reasonable chance this is going to happen anyway, but secession will only guarantee and speed up the process.

We're getting way off topic here, but I object to the concept of the government "granting" rights. A right is a right because the government has done nothing to curtail it. Until recent decades, homosexual relationships were banned by law (the rights of homosexuals to pursue relationships were curtailed). Furthermore, the rights of gays to have their marriages recognized in law were curtailed by the government's standing defintion (based on the traditional definition) of what constituted a legal marriage. The government has done nothing to "grant" rights to homosexuals in a positive sense; rather, it has ended the negative practice of legally curtailing homosexual unions. Getting back to the topic at hand, I doubt that Canadian public transportation is high up on the list of terrorist targets, for the moment. When buses start lighting up in Belgium, then I'll be scared.

Big words, from someone who misses the guy who once took his sons to Siberia to show them where the future was being created.

First of all, your cliches are so tired. They only serve to make your arguments that much more laughable. I mean, Bush Reich? (Oh, I get it: BUSH=HITLER. That's convincing. So when is the US going to annex Canada? Which segment of the American population is Bush scapegoating? Go the extra mile and fill in a few blanks for me here.) It's interesting to me, how much your conspiracy theory about the government using false information to "terrorize" the American population reads like a cheap movie plot. I believe it might just be possible that you put a little too much faith into whatever spy thrillers you've seen. I know the stories appear plausible, but the real world doesn't work that way. Here's some things you may have missed while you were awake and frantically skimming the headlines for signs of Bush-inspired Armaggedon: - The US didn't go into Iraq in retaliation for 911. Collusion between Al-Qaeda and Saddam over 911 was never an issue. The American effort was entirely pre-emptive in nature, and was based on Saddam's history of supporting terrorism, harbouring terrorists, attempting to acquire WMD and attacking peaceful neighbouring states. - Furthermore, the evidence available after 911 suggested that Al-Qaeda had supporters and sympathizers across the Middle East, and that the effort required to remove the threat of Islamist terrorism required a large, long-term American military presence. The pre-911 arrangement with Saudi Arabia was insufficient (and largely suspect, due to the large contingent of Saudis in the 911 group). The solution was a large, permanent base in a friendly nation in the centre of the Middle East. Hence the need for a democratic and pro-West Iraq. You can call this imperialism if it suits you. I suppose you also consider the continued presense of large American troop deployments in Germany and South Korea to be indicative of America's "imperialist" past lurking in the present. I call it defending allied nations against unstable former adversaries. Potato, potahto. I can't help you with your belief that the US has such a stranglehold on the global oil market that it considers an independant Iraq a threat. My only suggestion in that regard is lithium, and a good therapist.

I'd say it's pretty blinkered to assume there will never be an enemy capable of launching missile attacks on North America, or North American allies overseas. It's not like the technology doesn't exist, pal. As for the Cold War, do you think we kept up our end of our NATO obligations? Going from having the world's third largest navy to having essentially no naval capability at all? And making similar cutbacks in spending throughout our defensive capability, despite having the second largest landmass of any nation on Earth? Do you really believe we defended Canada all by ourselves? Above all else, the Cold War was brought to an end by the American commitment to winning it. If it had been left up to the Trudeaus of this world, I'd be typing in Russian right now, assuming the Soviet system would ever develop the technical capability to create something like the internet.

Because God knows, we sure wouldn't want to be shielded from missile attacks. Or protected by the American military. Good thing we paid our own way through the Cold War.

Did you just wake up from a coma? This looks like the stuff that people were writing back in 2002. Do you honestly believe that the US went to war in Iraq solely to benefit Haliburton (or, let's say, all American oil interests), and do you think the WMD issues and the democratization efforts and everything else was just blather to cover the oil issue up?

Um, who wants to keep who in the back room now? I gather you feel that all personal beliefs are off limit in political discourse. Which is a little limiting, you know? Considering that pretty much all of politics boils down to personal opinion. Just saying. Also, skepticism is the philosophical refutation of absolute knowledge, and doesn't include a verbal tar-and-feathering job on people like my grandmother.

You can't seriously believe that Global, or FoxNorth, is "owned by the Liberal Party of Canada." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sheesh, you people are insulated. What is the left ever going to do if the conservative movement in Canada ever develops a spine?

Good luck with that.