Leafless

You could brush up on your actual knowledge of the war. The only place in Iraq where there are Shi'ites that the U.S. has any presence at all is Baghdad itself. Every other place where they are stationed is a Sunni area. In Baghdad, they are propping up a Shi'ite government and largely fighting Sunnis. So if Iran really is providing weapons to their fellow Shi'ites, those weapons are likely being used to fight the insurgency, and this is just another lying excuse to start another war. http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/nyt-falls-...an-weapons.html We have a double war going on here. The 'war on terror' coupled with 'sectarian fighting'. You are referring the sectarian battle. It does not necessarily prove anything if Shiites are dominant in Baghdad. What exactly does this mean? That they side with the U.S.? Not necessarily. It appears Iran is trying to obtain Shiite allegiance to dictate terms of a new scheme for the Middle East. "If Iran can wrest Iraqi Shiites' allegiance through bribes and killings it will then have changed in its favour the regional balance while shattering the primacy of Sunni Arabs, and dictate terms of a new scheme for the Middle East with unimaginable global consequences." http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...03/3514696.html

Thanks Greg and all others for the information. I suppose this clears things up about 'Google.com' on this site.

This could be a topic in itself. Do Canadians have a brain in their head. The automotive industry is a good example what happens when you don't buy domestically produced automobiles which equates to thousands of lost jobs in the automotive industry. Pertaining to our economy this is like Canadians shooting themselves in the foot. And the same thing will basically apply to Kyoto, one way or the other the economy will feel the pinch again resulting in lost jobs and again Canadians shooting themselves in the foot. PM Harper had it right initially and that is to improve our air quality here in Canada.

Sunnis, Shites, Sufis, Karrijites, Wahhabis, Ismailis, Zaidis and others must be really all buddies with one another or they wouldn't ALL GO TO THE SAME MOSQUE. "Unlike churches, mosques are not denominational. Despite the differences among Muslims, traditional Friday prayer services are largely similar and Muslims of any background are welcome to attend services at any mosque. " This took a lot of research: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/isla...islam_sects.htm Better brush up on your Christianity there BD, there are a lot more sects and divisions than Islam.

Now what will the Conservatives do? PM Harper pushing the ignore button could set the Kyoto friendly Liberals off in a tizzy. http://www.570news.com/news/national/artic...ontent=n021473A

It is no ploy. Iran is after, especially America and has been in the works for some time. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../14/wiran14.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...06/wiran106.xml

"Mr. Bush said it had been established beyond a doubt that a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps known as the Quds Force is supplying Shiite groups inside Iraq with particularly deadly, Iranian-designed weapons known as explosively formed penetrators, or E.F.P.s." "“I intend to do something about it,” Mr. Bush said. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/world/mi...artner=homepage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could this indicate the beginning of a war with Iran?

Nothing to fear say the Liberals. The Liberals and the Block heads are going to vote to kill "draconian" anti-terrorism legislation, to prevent the Conservatives from extending anti-terrorism legislation which expires this week. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...3827828&k=47667 This is a typical Liberal ideology anyways, that terrorist or pertaining to all criminals, are not criminals but are simply misunderstood.

Well actually if it was that big of deal you could stop google.com...I am fairly sure that you can mask posts from guests, but is it really that big of deal? This is what is troublesome. Just how significant is 'Google.com' or considering a possible definite purpose, as in comparison to a spammer or regular nobody hack? No one will ever know except for the fact 'Google.com' is here and could be doing anything.

1. Allegedly involved in terrorist activities. 2. Why do you single out Arab descent in particular? 3. Traitorous how? His alleged activities were carried out in Afghanistan, and affected nothing Canadian. This is the whole point and that is, why should Canada be involved with individuals who undertake personal political undertakings in the name of another country, potential or otherwise. Islamic extremism or Islamic fundamentalism is responsible in 2004-2005 for 57% of fatalities and 61% of woundings and that is why I single out Arab Muslims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism Abdorahman Khadr's personal history I am not going to get involved with but is it normal for Canadian Muslims to send their kids to learn violence and destruction in a camp thousands of kilometres away? The traitor aspect could involve the killing of Canadian troops by Arab Canadians who are loyal to Islamic fundamentalism or in fact simply carrying on potentially violent activities (in the name of Islam) is enough to make one a traitor to this country.

It my be a common tactic of both major political parties, but opportunistic pandering to Quebec has nothing to do with 'small l' liberalism. Then what does it have to with, no values, no principles, or simply LEARNED corruption something very 'small l's are famous for.

Army Guy is asking your opinion: "at what point do you stop being a Canadian citizen, where do we draw the line and revoke citizenship"... And I gave my opinion, IOW..I wouldn't waste my time concerning defending any Arab immigrant that displays traitorous characteristics in a foreign land involving terrorist activities and then expects to be rescued. This is despite existing laws which naturally would be changed to accommodate my viewpoint. And on the same note any Arab immigrant found to be entertaining ANY TYPE of potential terrorist activities in Canada would be immediately deported. Whats your opinion on the topic or are you to lame to have one?

Eh! What politician would want to be the scapegoat for the one being responsible for the break up of Canada? IMO Canada went soft on our constitution especially with the inclusion of the NWC and minority rights. IOW they gave the country away!

The onus to prove 'innocence' should not be the responsibility of the federal government concerning an individual that possesses apparent traitorous characteristics involving terrorist activity, but rather on the individual to prove his or her own innocence, pertaining to the alleged offense and at their own expense.

Good point! But I think the problem going down that path is our dysfunctional electoral system. This could also be combined with the undemocratic powers of the provinces themselves. That is having a SINGLE person, the premier who represents the interest of a provinces entire population, big or small, especially concerning issue's that are constitutional in nature. Canadians it appears don't have much of a democratic voice in anything involving federal or provincial control.

Most anything is possible. I would like to think that whenever google appears here, it is likely some world leader or other who is interested in what I had to say on the matter . Then, after thinking it through, my wishes sound like 'delusional paranoia coupled with a messiah complex'. Then again, there is probably a little bit of that in all of us. Ask an intelligent question and get a dumb answer, as to suggest "delusional parania coupled with the massiah complex" inflicts all of us, including you. The point is, this a privacy issue. Google.com is not a member of this site yet appears in the active users list. How did it get there? As far as that goes Google.com could be working for a government or whoever, to pry or search out personal information, something it certainly has the resources to do. I don't know about you , but I find Google.com as an unauthorized member on this site, a potential threat or direct threat to personal privacy, especially on a political site.

This is a new plan. Do you have a link that prescribes what you are saying?

Why fund something if it does not provide results. Almost any project could be construed as being seen as a green friendly plan. To give away tax payer dollars to fund provincial interest under the title of a 'green plan' is not the solution as compared to a more positive national plan. Is there not other more important priorities in Canada that require more immediate attention such as our decaying health care system or infrastructure.

I don't know what you say is a accurate if you consider google itself could be a spy on this site or interested on someone on this site. http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2175251

How can you possibly consider this move reasonable? The money is not even in the bank yet as the $1.5 billion will come from the NEXT federal budget, which has neither been tabled in the House of Commons, nor adopted by MPs. Harper is acting to quickly on this one and leaving Canadians out of the picture concerning details of the Eco-trust fund and his 'green plan'. It should be up to the federal government to develop a 'national green plan' and not up to the provinces that can squander the money on insignificant ventures or plans to create another handful of millionaires with no real benefit to Canadian environmental concerns. Harper should hang his head in shame on this one and stop wasting tax payers money trying to buy votes.

In the active users list, I have noticed quite frequently Google.com appears as an active user but does not exist as a member. Who is Google.com?

Well, well, well. All of this money for WHAT? How or where will this money be spent? Where are the guarantees that this money will actually make a difference in our climate or the world's climate? Will the tax payers of Canada be guaranteed results concerning Mr. Harper's generous $400 million dollar climate change gift to Quebec or is this simply further pandering to La Belle Province? http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/02...3596945-cp.html And I'll throw this in to top it off: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...7/02/c4242.html

This would be a little less worthy of snickering if your responses to him were on his issue rather than a personal attack on him. The little twerp wouldn't know the difference anyways as he comes from a group that is the most bigoted, racist and most intolerant of the ROC.

I checked out Ireland on Wiki, now that is a country. They are ranked higher for living standards, lower unemployment, pound for pound more wealthy than we are, have no natural resources, have more foreign investment than we do, and on top of that have enough money to fund post secondary education. As a country we should be emberrassed considering of all the advantages we have over them. The Celtic tiger could turn out to be a paper tiger. Demographics, financial assistance by the European Union, LOW WAGES and luck of the Irish are the reason Ireland is where it is at today. But most countries in the world would gladly trade places with Canada to have the U.S. as its neighbor.

As far as I am concerned, no, although it could have a partial effect years down the road on items affecting other environmental concerns like acid rain, smog and possibly help prevent thinning of the ozone layer. But at this point I am more inclined to agree with Harper's proposed plan concerning improving air quality in cities. But even that plan has serious limitations as a country has no way of controlling air in its atmosphere as winds import other countries air pollution, possibly worse than ours.