blackbird

I didn't say every single thing that happened was something I agreed with or that it was a good thing. We live in an imperfect world and not everything that happens can be approved of. -The U.S. invasion of Iraq was based on a report that Sadam has weapons of mass destruction and might use them. I can't recall what I thought about it at the time. I think I may have agreed with the U.S. Many think now it was a mistake to go into Iraq. -Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE are I believe allies of the U.S. They are not funding ISIS and Al Qaeda. Not sure where you got that. -Libya had Khadafi who I think was causing the west a lot of trouble. Wasn't he killing a lot of people in his own country? They decided he had to be removed. I think there are still a lot of problem with Libya. Those countries are very unstable and have internal civil wars and revolutions periodically. -Egypt has been an ally of the U.S. for many years. The U.S. supplies a lot of money or military aid for Egypt in order to keep them as allies. It is better to have Egypt and Saudi Arabia as allies than opponents. That is why the U.S. gives them money and military assistance. -Drones are used by the U.S. to go after high-ranking Al Qaeda leaders. They have been successful. It is a major part of the war on terrorism.

Sounds like you've been reading socialist/marxist propaganda. Those are the exact words they often use. I take it you are a young idealist. I read the odd book with those phrases when I was young. Thankfully I eventually woke up to reality about 40 years ago. Sometimes it takes time.

He has had a significant impact. The stock market jumped up quite a bit signifying confidence the direction the U.S. is heading. The proper answer is confidence. It makes a big difference to everything.

What part of the world do you live in? It sounds like you might be opposed to the west's war on terrorism in the world. What's your solution?

True.

Wasn't he influenced by some extremist group(s)?

They might be. Our soldiers in Afghanistan were fighting terrorists as well as trying to build a better life for women and children (schools) for example.

Revoking citizenship of a convicted terrorist who holds dual citizenship would send a message to other would-be terrorists in the country. Keeping someone in prison in Canada is very costly. If we have a simple way of avoiding that expense that might be over 100,000 dollars a year, it might be worth doing. Many countries in the ME and Africa have so many terrorists that one more wouldn't make any difference.

Agreed.

I don't see sending soldiers as globalism. I see globalism as a country being controlled by some international group or political power. Soldiers are sent to defend other people from terrorism or aggression.

I wouldn't say so. Older, yes. But richer? How do you define richer? Canada's and U.S.'s culture was taken with them when they came to the new world don't forget. We have the best of both the old world and the new world. We have the culture of Europe if you want to call it that or for lack of a better word, and we have the beauty, wealth, geography of the new world. We are better off than Europeans in so many ways.

The inherent weakness in giving special privileges to the Catholic schools in some provinces is that some other religion will make the same demands where their numbers are sufficient. We need to find a way to change that. No religion should receive special privileges. I would rather religion be banned from being taught in public school. People who want religion taught, can send their kids to private religious schools. We could have a voucher system for everyone.

I don't think Trump is going to want to change NAFTA with Canada much. His concern is with the thousands of jobs that have gone to Mexico and China.

Sorry, you lost me.

I edited my comment just at the time you replied to the original. That's why the slight difference. The genocide in Rwanda was a disaster.

I agree. The main international organization for globalism is the U.N. The U.N. has a Human Rights Council made up of about 41 countries. A lot of the countries on the Human Rights Council have a questionable human rights record, countries such as Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, etc. The U.N. has put a lot of energy into condemning Israel, which is the only democratic country in the middle east.

I agree. The system is in need of a massive overhaul. I disagree with the comments saying we shouldn't be sending our soldiers to other countries. They don't understand what is going on in the world. They are to be pitied as lacking in basic knowledge about world affairs. Soldiers should be given the respect they deserve for putting their lives on the line and serving their country and the cause of freedom in the world.

What's Trump got to do with it? I thought we were talking about a motion in the Canadian Parliament. Your link does say the article you quoted is commentary from the Star. So what fact did I get wrong?

No. The Email did not come from a website; it came from a person.

A quote from a left wing newspaper columnist working for the Star. Others would beg to differ. If it an innocuous motion, why even bother with it? Why don't they define what Islamophobia means? They were offered a chance to replace the word Islamophobia with a motion which explicitly refers hate crimes against all religions but refused to change it. Does it refer to hate crimes such as vandalizing a mosque or insulting muslims on the street? I think we already have hate crime laws to deal with that? Or does it have a more sinister purpose, such as to restrict freedom to criticize Islam further down the road? Everyone knows and agrees it is not a law; No need to keep reminding us, we are not that dumb, but it is a referral to the Heritage Committee who will be required to come back with some recommendations. What will they come back with? We will have to wait and see if M103 is a benign motion as many supporters of it claim or if the government has more in mind.

Yes. If I could become a servant, baker or maybe a chauffeur for Her Majesty, I would be satisfied.

LOL. Now now. The Americans have many that are thought of as royalty just the same. Such as the First Lady, or maybe Ivanka Trump will be considered a Princess. The wife of John F. Kennedy was like royalty. Jacqeline Kennedy. Not to mention movie stars. I think of Elvis Presley, as he was close to royalty.

The problem in England is the Queen is both head of state and head of the Church of England. So whatever the hierarchy in the COE says, the Queen must obey. There should be a separation of church and state.

That website is phony; it goes nowhere. Don't waste our time with bogus links.

A Muslim woman speaks out at a rally in Toronto against M103. http://www.therebel.media/muslim_woman_speaks_out_m_103_supporters_wouldn_t_last_a_day_under_sharia_law Thought I read this was coming up in Parliament today for second reading, but heard nothing about it on the news.