Leafless

Else's is NOT a word. Check it out in your blooming dictionary. What 'else's' is though is a 'IDIOM' and not defined as a single word. http://www.linguarama.com/ps/295-6.htm

I don't share your sense of humour. If you don't have any sense of patriotism for Canada and recognize the fact the U.S. is responsible for Canada's sovereignty and prosperity. What else could be possibly said about the only country in the world that is generous enough to lend a hand concerning Canada's salvation and continues to do it. Why is recognizing the U.S. as a trusted friend and ally so hard to acknowledge? Why would any Canadian citizen not trust and believe U.S. leadership is the only factor that will produce the continuation of capitalism with the net result that could help and achieve a more properous and safer U.S. and Canada? Do you not think the U.S. could bring Canada to it's knees any time it feels like it without firing a single shot?

Quebec is a have not province initially. How will removing federal funding make Quebec better off? Removing transfer and equalization payments ALONE would cripple the province. This is of course is excluding the massive infusion of federal aid to business and that keeps firms like Bombardier to Quebec's film making industry functional.

That's why some Canadians think the Charter is not worth the paper it's written on. Repatriating our constitution is what our premiers agreed to for possible changes at a later date that could be for the betterment of all Canadians if the situation developed. This could have been a political conspiracy all along just to get the constitution back to Canada and make changes to appease Quebec. This is why Meech and the Charlottetown accord failed because no one especially wanted to open and fiddle with our constitution for what Quebec was after. But the constitution was amended regardless, giving Quebec important concessions over the status of all other Canadians creating in effect 'official discrimination' against Canadians collectively. Aboriginals to were given IMO, unreasonable guarantees. What all other Canadians gained was not much that we didn't already have under our old federal and provincial human rights code. But the other important factor regarding the charter is that the 'federal government has the exclusive power to advance the equality status or use of English and French' and IMO this means French or relating to Quebec again if it chooses. This is strange though because provinces like Quebec, are suppose have power over the language in their respective provinces.

"Where the hell are they" Who knows and that's what the problem is. These cowards are like chameleons and blend in with regular civilian populations. I don't think the terrorist threat has been grossly inflated and most people 'don't piss their pants over it', but is something these terrorist love making a hapless victim do prior to severing the head off of one. But here is a link to keep you properly informed: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Terminal greed is the reason for that under the guise of 'outsourcing'. We need a whole new system. http://www.newwork.com/Pages/Opinion/Rayno...le%20Class.html

Death and destruction caused by terrorist actions as viewed by Black Dog: 'PASS THE POPCORN'.

I can't believe this is happening, from Germany 'the good'? "Civil rights groups filed a suit with German prosecutors on Tuesday seeking war crimes charges against outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for alleged abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons." Maybe this will make 'Ripley's Believe it or Not'. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....xml&src=rss

Sorry, here is the link to that story... http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....xml&src=rss

I agree politics and religion don't mix outside of a basic understanding where governments to a degree should support it's countries majority religion. I am a marginal Christian, but support organized Western Christian religion for the net effect it has on society, that being mainly spiritual and moralistic support, along with traditional beliefs concerning special events such as Christmas and Easter celebrations. This in turn helps families with spiritual guidance especially concerning raising their children. But now we have the Pope leader of the Christian world involved in something perhaps he should steer clear of and that is personal meddling in a volatile religion that preaches against infidels including Christians and is highly politically motivated religion. This kind of move could induce Christians to no longer support their Christian religion. Should the Pope involve himself with Islam when acting as the highest representative of Christianity, with many Christians that may be totally against this kind of involvement?

What I find strange is that in Britain- " Britain's domestic spy agency said Muslim extremists were plotting at least 30 major terrorist attacks in Britain which could involve chemical and nuclear devices." But what about Canada and the U.S. MSM have not indicated or reported of any planned mass terror attacks in Canada or the U.S. like in Britain. I wonder if there are indeed threats by Muslim extremist in Canada and the U.S. but they are being hushed up by government?

Your not busting my bubble. Anyways, I'am not talking allies but rather a united dependency concerning our only adjacent country the U.S. and for all practical reasons we can conclude that we have been assimilated as a country by the U.S. and to our benefit. We have always been dependent on the U.S. as a major trading partner, but your right times are changing and this is affecting all major countries. But Canada is also taking advantage regarding the tremendous labour advantage of low manufacturing cost in other countries effectively reducing domestic manufacturing but still managing a healthy mark up on these imported items. I think it's better for Canada to remain small, as our viability for expansion in most areas is limited due to our climate. We have lots of water and that is going to be a very valuable asset in the near future as well as our regular line of natural resources increasing in $$$, as well as what you mentioned, oil. I would rather see an increase in taxes or other method to maintain our social programs than to increase Canada's population only to temporally accomplish the same feat and then at later date only to face the financial shortfall we are currently experiencing and end up in an even more difficult financial position. Then again if things really get rough we can employ other methods to keep the Canada viable but with a reduction in lifestyle.

"Al Qaeda is trying to acquire the technology that would enable it to use a nuclear device to attack Western targets including Britain, a senior British official said on Monday. Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of intelligence agency MI5, said last week young British Muslims were being groomed to become suicide bombers and her agents were tracking some 1,600 suspects, most of whom were British-born and linked to al Qaeda in Pakistan." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 'GERM' is spreading. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....xml&src=rss

Now if the Quebec government would have ask me first, I would have saved them 5-million. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...40e&k=53299

According to the article GG Michaelle Jean voluntarily wants to visit the troops in Kandahar: "Ms. Jean told Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, in early 2006 that she wanted to visit the troops in Kandahar" But I also see this as a possible cheap Liberal ploy to promote Michaelle Jean, seen as a Liberal appointed star icon, rather than owe any political credit credit to Stephen Harper in an effort to belittle the importance of his trip to Kandahar. Although the GG is technically 'commander-in-chief' of Canada's military, her role in operational terms is simply as a figurehead. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...09-450bd12cd4a9

Quite apart from what Charest meant in this statement, it's obvious that Quebec is not a province like the others. Leafless, you never fail to draw reference to how distinct and different Quebec and French Canada are. At some point, "Canada" will recognize this fact too. You would not be posting this type of response if you recognized the fact distinctness or difference is not the criteria that constitutes a nation or country but rather it's viability to survive independently, something Quebec cannot do. In fact Quebec did come a long way since it entered confederation but at the expense of Canadians not by it's own independent ingenuity. If you consider extortion a recognized method of creating an independent nation, I don't.

It seems Premier Charest has gotten into the Quebec nation fray and categorically states Quebec is a 'nation' and further states "And by the way, neither do I believe that Quebecer's have any permission to ask from anyone to be who they are. Period." Seems like this is sort of playing right into the arms of the Liberals putting PM Harper in a difficult position. This almost sounds like a planned liberal conspiracy. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...08b&k=38980

Without going into great detail, what we are fighting for is to maintain our successful Western English culture, advanced society and civilized standards most of us consider extremely important. Our culture, advanced society and standards are closely related to to U.S. culture and standards and their successful even more advanced society contrary to what you might otherwise hear, especially from Liberal sources. I find it hard to believe that anyone on this site would question what Western ideals are when the only two countries that really form these ideals are the U.S. and Canada.

Western ideologies? What exactly does that mean to you Leafless? Please explain so that we can understand where you are coming from? My ideas of "western ideologies": Freedom of speech (including "I hate Jews" or "I hate fags" -- can't have one without the other) Freedom of religion (worship tin cans if that floats yer boat) Freedom from religion (religious ideology does not belong anywhere but at home and in "religious houses" ie churches) There of course, are many more freedoms that we simply take for granted, but these are the most important IMO. Please explain from where your coming from. I can understand perfectly well why some other countries view Canada as a 'BANANA REPUPLIC' outside of Muslim and other ethnic countries.

Sure looks like a civil war to many observers. Of course though, to some observers, the U.S. civil war wasn't really a civil war. I don't know that your reasoning is going to satisfy even President Bush now. "We have to stay and get killed even though it won't solve anything." I guess we should be thinking of who the nest Democratic President of the United States will be in 2008. Here is someone else's view on the subject. http://www.answers.com/else's http://www.leafless.justgotowned.com/ American's know what their civil war was and it's cause. We refer to the Iraqi's fighting among themselves as a civil war. Iraqi's dont know what a civil war is much less what their fighting over. You have a thick head. There is no such word as "else's". All you have to do is rephrase your original two sentences which was incorrect anyways as you have two separate thought patterns in the same paragraph which is another error. "I don't support terrorism. However, I don't think we can prevent someone else's civil war either."

You must be a FRENCH bilingual boaster not to be confused with poster, as virtually all competent English posters know we are corresponding with NOBODIES and no one really gives a damn about typos or spelling errors. For all I know you could be operating out of an insane asylum or a penitentiary.

Internal conflict is by its nature civil war. And if it is a no win situation, why stay? Will it improve security for the U.S.? The Pentagon's own research has said no. As far as "else's" goes, I see it in the style guide for the Washington Post and the New York Times. They're wrong in its usage? Civil war is a word pertaining to people who understand what the word MEANS and understand it's cause and what it will produce. Ive already answered why the U.S. must stay in Iraq: "The Iraq situation is a no win situation but that is the reason the U.S. and it's allies must stay as we cannot allow or give the opportunity concerning terrorist barbaric actions to destroy or control free democratic countries." Security will not be improved, not in the immediate future. But I have this to say. When the world comes to grips concerning the growing Muslim problem in countries like Britain and France it could be eventually acknowledged by free democratic countries that extreme action could be desirable and deployed against growing Islamic aggression. If you say the Washing Post or the New York Times want to use "else's" it is SLANG and technically wrong, but if they do use it I suppose it's their business. But the fact remains there is no such word as "else's".

This is TOTAL B.S. Utter crap. Anyone who criticized the war in Iraq is an enemy of western ideologies?! How about this -- anyone who is either too afraid or too jingoistic to demand better of his government is nothing but a nationalist. Anyone who thinks we could not have done better is a loser. Anyone who thinks that we have not lived up to our potential is someone who accepts mediocrity. Anyone who criticicizes contsitutional rights -- like freedom of speech -- is an abettor of the forces that corrupt western ideology. How about that? Again, look in the mirror, traitor. You foolishly cling to the notion that any criticism of the way this war was waged is a criticism of western ideology. Sorry, bud, but you missed Western Civics 101: anyone who fails to force his government to do better is a traitor to western ideology. By falling subservient to whatever political force rules the country, I count you among the boot-lickers of history. You want to undermine those who seek better for our country. You are a traitor to western thought. People who think like you are perhaps better suited to nations where agreeing with the government is the ulitmate civic virtue. If so, consider your passport to North Korea, Iran and Burma pre-stamped and consider yourself cleared for customs. I await YOUR apology, traitor-to-the-west. I do believe in Canadian nationalism, thanks for the compliment. I am a sub-servant to the political force that SHOULD be ruling this country not the imaginary Liberal one and is directly why I think the charter belongs in the garbage can. I seek better ways for our government to do things to and in Canada this is called 'elections' not by bad mouthing the president of the U.S. and his secretary of state. Thanks for the traitor compliment, by your definition suits me fine. Hope you enjoy your traitor compliment and by your own definition is what you are. BTW- Since everyone is picking on spelling errors you've made three obvious ones: criticicizes, consitutional, ultmate.

I have already pointed out it is obvious Iraqi's cannot handle freedom. This is not a real civil war but an internal conflict based on an abnormal pursuit of power and greed. How can you whip down primitive people to forcefully make them understand that there is a more civilized way of understanding and doing things. The answer is you cannot and if you do you are viewed as some countries already view the U.S. and it's allies as thugs. The Iraq situation is a no win situation but that is the reason the U.S. and it's allies must stay as we cannot allow or give the opportunity concerning terrorist barbaric actions to destroy or control free democratic countries. BTW- there is no such word as "else's".

I can view you as I wish and if think you are a traitor to western ideologies especially in the Iraq war Canada is not even a participant in. By bad mouthing the U.S. president and his defense secretary concerning a war like the Iraq conflict, you are appeasing Iraq ideologies. Iraqi terrorist must love you.