Leafless

Territorial is the British term for reservist. It seems you prefer the American. It would or did indeed surprise me Canada using a relatively unheard of British word in Canada to describe a territorial army, " a volunteer force locally organized to provide a reserve of trained and disciplined manpower to be used in an emergency", quoted from Concise Oxford dictionary. Of course 'territorial' in reference to Canada: "of a person or animal tending to defend an area of territory-quoted from Concise Oxford Dictionary", would fit in slightly, in a more appropriate manner considering the current makeup of Canada. Yes, I do prefer the U.S. version of 'national guard' as it more appropriately describes its function and a word that encompasses all of Canada, as in nation.

You say "unfortunately," which implies you disagree with the exclusion of gay rights in the UNDoHR, but then you say "with good reason" which implies that the lack of acceptance (to put it mildly) of homosexuals in many countires is justifiable. I'm then as to what your principles are here. "Unfortunately" for gays is what was intended to be implied and not relating to my personal concerns on the issue.. In this particular instance my principles are formed by the acceptance pertaining to this issue by the majority of Canadians concerning homosexuality and gay marriage. Of course this never happened in Canada and Canadians were denied the right to vote on the matter in the way of a referendum or similar legal manner. Therefore I personally will remain biased as a matter of principle, against homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle.

The U.S. is no tin pot dictator. All countries have political interest and are accounted for according to political and military clout. I find it incredible that a Canadian would express your type of view in a democratic, free country such as Canada who is so closely related to the success of American political endeavors.

Bush has been doing that for the past 6 years, where the hell have you been? The Capitalistic Military Industrial Complex wants to do business with you. I live in Canada and the U.S. is an important trading partner and ally. What country do you live in?

Chavez is pounding the war drums. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01...venezuela_x.htm http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm I don't know about you, but I prefer the U.S. and capitalism over a bunch of tin pot dictators controlling the future of the world we live in.

My order of priorities are based on PRINCIPLES. One of of my base principles is the U.N. and its 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' which is based on heterosexual lifestyles. Unfortunately gays have been excluded from certain aspects from this declaration and for good reason as gays do not have sufficient acceptance from countries of the world to include them in the same fashion as heterosexuals. Muslims are against the 'gay lifestyle' due to religious beliefs like so are many other countries and societies, but are not curtailed to voice an opinion, like for instance Canadians are. Canadian citizens for instance have been denied the democratic right to an opinion on this (gay marriage or even the legal aspect of homosexuality) as the issue was decided by the courts and parliament rather than by Canadians.

" Canada has expressed alarm at the "pattern of discrimination" against homosexuals at the United Nations after a UN committee that vets the credentials of activist groups denied Quebec's leading gay and lesbian coalition access to the organization." http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...b7-ea137b28c3fe ------------------------------------------------------- I really don't know why Canada should feel deeply dismayed over this, as most other countries don't hold the same homosexual values Canada does, besides the gay activist group only has observer status at the U.N.

"PARIS - Quebec Premier Jean Charest appeared to be road-testing two election campaign themes Thursday when he arrived in Paris as the guest of French President Jacques Chirac at a conference on environmental governance." "Charest also wanted to talk with Chirac and others he will meet in Paris about his proposal, unveiled last week in Davos, Switzerland, for a Canada-European Union free trade agreement." http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...c968521&k=14613 ----------------------------------------------------------------- What exactly is Charest doing there? Is this not the job of the Prime minister of Canada and why is Mr. Harper allowing this kind of dangerous misrepresentation concerning Canada's stance on environmental issue's? It appears Charest is the root cause for the promotion of environmental concerns in Canada, mainly Kyoto which would prove extremely financially beneficial to Quebec by way green air credits if implemented.

What does it take to get the U.S. REALLY ANGRY? Chavez's MOUTH is threatening the stability of the FREE WORLD and the integrity of President G.W. Bush and the U.S. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249540,00.html

More support for our military and a well-thought out dispersal of manpower. Good work! For what? A "territorial battalion", sounds like a pit bull with a case of rabies. Why can't they call it at the very least the 'Canadian National Guard'. I know this sounds probably much to patriotic and controlling especially to the idiots in this country who are screaming for national unity but really want nothing do with it.

This is only natural concerning culture. Culture is an automatic identifier of a countries characteristics. For instance in this country without continual federal intervention, you would be hard pressed to separate cultural characteristics between the U.S. and Canada. I think a country is in big trouble when its government has to artificially alter a countries cultural characteristics, in order to satisfy the characteristics of minority cultures who refuse to be associated with the countries main evolved cultural characteristics. This can directly be compared to a nations religions in a pecking order as determined by its government, something that is absolutely discouraged in this country and supported by charter rights that include 'freedom of religion'. But what about culture? Is that not also protected under the charters fundamental freedoms, "Section 2(, which states freedom of thought , belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication." Does this not override government cultural intervention?

Well, since the charter and the banks dominate Canada, I guess its only appropriate we militarize our cities to protect the assets of big business. Doesn't sound much different than Chavezism. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...075d2b15&k=2547

Interpret this: An abundance of ball licking commies!

You forgot: "and having a lot of time." Actually I have very little time compared to the other poster nut bars around here, some of who post 49 times in a single day with BD mostly always in the ranks of the top ten posters.

So, it seems the general attitude or consensus (according to the number of replies) is to stuff religion and allow government to rule culturally. Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.

We are all familiar with the 'separation of church and state', but what about the 'separation of state and culture'. Actually state propelled culture is more discriminatory and devastating to a country than the aspect of 'separation of church and state'. In a democratic society, are we not entitled to our own culture? And if we are, why is the federal government in Canada constantley promoting the French culture and even the Aboriginal culture, cultures which are entrenched in our constitution and given special rights. We are being attacked in a 'tribal sense backed by government' and most Canadians think this is okay, but scream concerning 'separation of church and state' which BTW is culturally oriented. Here are interesting facts or reading pertaining to the French CULTURE. http://www.zompist.com/frenchcult.html

The U.S. shrugged off Arar's sue attempt by claiming national security concerns. Canada could of done the same. Don't forget the reason for Canada's involvement and subsequent payoff was for results from the Arar Inquiry basically supplying the wrong information to the U.S. that resulted in Arar's deportation to his birthplace Syria and the all important torture allegations. Of course if Arar sued in court he would have to prove his torture allegations, something the Syrians no way were to be involved. And he would have to prove if Canadian authorities allegations of terrorist suspicions were unreasonable, something that would be hard to prove considering his association with individuals with obvious ties to terrorist Abdullah Almalki and Ahmad El Maati. There is also the claim Canadian officials believe that the U.S. was conducting an investigation of Arar prior to Dec.11th. Second, it notes was under American investigation in February of 2002. What triggered those investigations, no one is saying. I believe the Conservatives took the easy way out especially for a bid for Muslim votes and to defuse potential Islamic aggression in Canada.

Lefty MSM have done it again, appearing to pander to GWB and the U.S. while in reality fostering higher negative lefty friendly numbers, opposing the role of the U.S. Who needs a friend like Canada? http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...e59b96b&k=37198

Blackdog Order in the court room, order in the court room! Here come duh JUDGE!

The thread and the number was provided by someone who sought to discredit the protest. No bias from this end. Now their quoting 500,000 protesters. http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19321

Your funny. Its the collective forces that count and that fight for a countries interest, nothing to do with with singular opinions where as your contribution is either to agree or disagree.

Three soldiers a day get killed for "getting in the way." Today, another helicopter got shot down. Then it should be up to the U.S. to apply extreme force to totally clear cities and hand pick the population to refill these cities with populations who desire peaceful U.S. style democratic government and forcefully exclude and banish Sunni's.

We were involved in Afghanistan originally as part of NATO as peacekeepers and only progressed to more of a necessary combat role because of the Conservatives, who at the same time are desperately trying to partially revive Canada's near non existent military because of years of Liberal abuse and underfunding. Our potential combat role in Iraq was rejected by Chretien, who rode the fence on the issue, although the Liberal stance had earned him brownie points with France and Germany. Your idea of enlightened international agenda of peaceful coexistence is right out of the pages of some fairy tale. You only have to look at Canada and its forced version of a constitution that forces Canadians to accept funding the political aspirations and welfare of certain identified groups at the expense of an unidentified majority with no democratic voice. Only in Canada would something this nonsensical be accepted, temporally anyways. Your suggestion that we reject relations with countries that have agendas that conflict with our own, raises an interesting question. What exactly are Canada's agendas, pertaining to whatever agendas you are talking about?

What you are saying is BS. U.S. interest are Canadian interest that are reflected in a higher ratio of exports, which are about as high as you possibly can go as seen from a Canadian perspective. Why should Canada continue to see the net benefits of U.S. foreign interest, when Canada shys away from the U.S. as a true aly and one that is very dependent on the continuing success of U.S. military operations.

Soldiers are dying to save help save the commercial face of America.