sharkman

No, I'm not advocating that theory you mentioned. The oil was flowing steadily under the U.N. in Iraq, although now we see how corrupt it was(oil for food). To introduce a war into that would actually create uncertainty, hence the oil price flucuation at the time of the attack. And no one knew if the Iraqis would respond with a slash and burn strategy like they did in Kuwait, a situation that would have put their oil production off line completely for some time. In fact they did burn some oil wells. I actually didn't even mention oil. France, Germany and Russia had many contracts with Iraq. I don't believe Iraq could sell oil except with the U.N.'s permission. Yes, I did mention that the 'cook the books' theory had been around, but had been started in earnest only recently. In using THEY I was refering to the dems. Google just about anything and there will be groups advocating it. For instance, some want to impeach Bush. Who knows, it might come to that, since it was done to 'their' president Clinton, almost.

Yes, the big three. They all had lots of revenue riding on Iraq. If Saddam got pulled from power, they'd lose it forever. IMO, their reputations are sullied by getting into bed with Saddam after he had attacked Kuwait and Desert Storm happened. After the U.N., an agency they seem to hold in high regard, passed resolution after resolution on Saddam's WMD shell game in the 90s. Although Russia hasn't had much of a rep anyway, Putin probably likes Saddam's style. But all the countries that joined the war effort agreed with the intel. It's easy to claim the books were cooked, and much harder to then disprove it, or prove a negative. No amount of proof would be enough. The thing is they didn't start this particular conspiracy theory in earnest until the public turned against the war and Bush. The press has been critical of the war since Bush landed on the carrier and declared the war over. The dead count has been particulary silly. In many wars 2,000 troops could be lost by lunch time.

You could have added quotes by most of the senate and congress dems, including Kerry and Al Gore. The reason they have changed their tunes so dramatically has everything to do with politics, not new revelations. We've known all along that intelligence agencies from key countries involved also came to the same conclusion when looking at the intelligence that the U.S. did. We've known that Saddam attempted to get nukes(nuclear facility destroyed by Israel), used chemical weapons and tried to assassinate a U.S president. We've known for almost a year that there were no WMDs. This business about 'jazzing up' the intelligence to push for an Iraqi invasion is a smoke screen. After 2 years of nothing but negative coverage of the invasion in the main stream media, surprise surprise, the American population has turned against the war, and Bush's approval ratings have dropped to an all time low. So the dems, who have only a minority in both houses and desperately would like to see Alito rejected, are making all the hay out of this that they can. They want power and they are willing to harm the war effort to do it. I actually heard a recording of Senator Kennedy speaking prior to the invasion about the dangerous threat that exists in Iraq that must be addressed. When asked why he's reversed himself on the issue, he actually said that he didn't believe it as much as Bush did. These are the kinds of reasonings that the administration has to deal with("I actually voted for it before I voted against it" -Kerry) since the media just can't bring themselves to shine a light on it. It's pathetic.

If the Liberals get in again, they will be in power when Quebec holds its eventual referendum on seperating. The party that royally screwed up its attempt to keep Quebec in the fold and made things positively worse will be the on that the seperatists point to and rightly say, there is corruption and sleaze in Canada, let's not be a part of that any longer. It might well work. They came within a hair of a majority last time. If they leave, Canada will never be the same. If the conservatives can be in power, they won't have that baggage and can say to Quebec, look, Canada threw the bums out, give us a chance. I know they are aware of the Quebec issue and have been studying it for years, rather than throwing money at it. They want to negotiate up front with Quebec, an honest approach can't be bad.

That is true, and the Jewish community has lived there putting up with it until recently when they have started moving out of France. Have the French suddenly gotten more nasty? That is unlikely. But having the population of France augmented by those of the Muslim faith (who have strong feelings about Jews) is problematic. It's gotten so bad that Jewish kids never walk alone when travelling between home and the Jewish school. They are forbidden to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish, even to the point of trying to wear generic looking clothing, all done in the attempt to avoid anti-semitism. Whomever you blame, France is increasingly unsafe. It's sad to see a country with such a great history come to this.

I believe you disagree with my previous point about young non muslims not being responsible for anti semitism. It appears that you feel I'm seeking scapegoats, then introduce radical clerics and miseries, though I now am not sure if you aree connecting said clerics and miseries to the riots or anti semitism. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that muslims are persecuting jews.

And you're positive Eureka that these radicals you speak of are non muslim down to the very last one? I don't know what info you've been hearing, but everything I'd seen and heard says it's children of Muslim immigrants who've been largely involved. That Jews are leaving France is troubling and the reasons they are giving are anti semitism by Muslims. Or is that just more of that pesky scapegoating?

Since the rioting has mostly quieted down now,(although 2 or 300 car owners a night would disagree) its troubling to hear that Jewish people are leaving France. They are being searched out and their property torched, among other things. This shows once and for all that it's more than just young toughs frustrated with living conditions.

(Blackdog quote) You're clearly missing the point. Afghanistan's problems social problems and totalitarian tendancies have a lot to do with the culture. You can't just go in, hld elections and slap together a constitution and expect democracy to take without addressing those cultural issues. (/quote) That's why I commented: It's definitely a rough place that is a long way from true democracy. The people have been living under dictatorships and totalitarianism so this new kind of government is quite hard to comprehend. It could take decades. Maybe it won't take at all. (/quote) At any rate I'm sure you'd agree that Afghanis need to live in a country of peace. How they might be able to achieve that is the hard part. Maybe RAWA has all the answers, but I remain unconvinced, anymore than the U.S. has all the answers.

The article you linked to made me doubt their objectivity. Lots of hate, obviously only representing one faction of Afghanistan. I wonder why they didn't meet with those like Diane Tebelius while she was in Iraq, and instead write a critique to her article. You say they've been around since the Russians were in Afghanistan? It must have been rough under the Taliban, being women, I can't imagine they were able to do much in their organization's behalf during all those years. And now they are free to complain, welcome to the voting process! You could probably get 50 different view points from factions of Afghanistan, and none of them would agree. To hold one up as the objective truth would be the same as only listening to the U.S. version. It's definitely a rough place that is a long way from true democracy. The people have been living under dictatorships and totalitarianism so this new kind of government is quite hard to comprehend. It could take decades. Maybe it won't take at all.

RAWA sounds like a pretty radical group, it's hard to know which source one finds might have an objective clear view of what's going on in Afghanistan or wherever. On the bigger question of Bin Laden, I think he has been able to create a new norm where a major city occasionally gets bombed and they can't quite prevent it. Even Spain, after agreeing to withdraw from Iraq was hit. I don't think it will ever end. These rabid sickos believe they have their god's blessing to do this and if a person wants to kill some people badly enough, you really can't stop him or her. I'm surprised that the U.S. hasn't been hit again, though. Surely they have people inbedded in various parts of the country. It's been 4 years, and I can't believe that the U.S. is solely responsible for the absense of more domestic attacks.

I big factor in the problems facing domestic auto makers are the employee costs per car manufactured. They are markedly higher. In the U.S., medical plans and pension plans are listed as the main culprits. So right off the bat the domestic product is more expensive. And they have always been behind japanese makers in the 4 cylinder engine, multi-valve engines and over all quality. Add these factors to the focus on trucks and suvs when gas prices are becoming a big concern and you can see nothing but trouble for the big three. They are starting to predict that GM will go bankrupt. This may actually save them as they can be freed from union contracts and this is about the only time when the unions would then sign on for less. And the U.S. gov. would not allow such a huge part of the economy to go under, as they did when they assisted Chrysler in the early 80s.

I recently read an article that explored this issue from a Canadian viewpoint. Some Jewish people are coming here from Europe as there is an established community. But I wonder how long it will take until some of the over 20 terrorist organizations we have operating in Canada to start copying the behaviours of their 'brothers' in Europe.

What must be troubling to the courts (not really) is that the child in the story was told by her lesbian parents that there was no father. There is a father and for the parents to be so dishonest regarding a foundational issue like that shows complete disregard for the child. Even if the child was adopted, the adoption agency would keep records and allow the child to meet their biological parents if they wish. To hide such information from children shows that these groups won't let silly things like the facts interfere with their indoctrination. How sad. Redefining marriage leads to redefining parents leads to redefining families... it never ends. And making up all kinds of new terms such as 'two spirit' only further distances gay activists from the mainstream they insist on being a part of.

To the question of whether a young person's (or any person's) comments should be treated the same I offer this: any comments should be taken with an open mind as long as they are offered with respect. Sparhawk, many of your comments on this thread have been inflammatory and you repeatedly called the letter a rant when it was very clear it was not. So don't be surprised to find opposition. It's clear you don't think much of conservatives, but at the end of the day I suppose we're all just trying to relate ideas and I know I don't let it bother me. At any rate, I'm sure the Liberal movement is strong enough to survive the comments of an old man.

I believe behaviours are learned and not inherent to race. The black culture n the U.S. is very unhealthy, with poverty, unemployment, drugs, racism and lack of hope all contributing to the problem. It's a troubling report, and the usual response to the bearer of politically incorrect news is to shoot the messenger.

What I find interesting is how homogeneous the attitudes of that generation are toward today's Canada in comparison to the one they fought for. I have a respect for old people, I have gotten to know many, and my parents are not that far removed from that generation. I know a little about how they conduct themselves in life. They are mentally tough people who hold themselves to a high code (although there are exceptions). I once roomed and boarded in the home of a lady of that generation. She had a difficult life, as most of them did. She's gone through stuff that would get the better of most of us today I fear. But she's proud of it. It's what made her strong. We today have no such experiences to refine our qualities. We are raised by the TV and mother Canada. What I don't understand is how the old are treated. The attitudes of many towards old people in general are just as homogeneous. To immediately discount his comments as a conservative rant and homophobic just because they don't jive with what's commonly accepted today shows an intolerance that is worse than anything expressed by the veteran.

Yes, I have to agree with your nuclear point. This aspect had a profound affect on Russia and their decisions throughout the cold war. I wonder if the U.S. will become isolationist after Bush is gone. Americans seem to see no other major threats anymore and success in Iraq has proved almost impossible. Baring any more terrorist attacks in the U.S., my only concern is China. It will soon be a super power and there needs to be a deterent there. P.S. My history may be a little shaky, but I believe WWII started in Sept of 1939. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in Dec of 1941, so the U.S. stayed out of the war for 2 years or so.

In Canada today we don't realize that we are the envy of the world, living in the lap of luxury and having freedoms that many don't even know to dream of. We have all of these blessings, but we don't understand the sacrifice previous Canadians made to get us here as they volunteered to be shot at, gassed, starved or tortured. That puts us in danger of affecting Canada for the worse, becoming less than the country it was. So I think it's a bad thing to not understand the sacrifice that war entails, it may doom us to repeat past mistakes.

Some want to discount the war vet's remarks as an old fuddy duddy who probably doesn't like gay marriage. Stick the homofobe label on him and set him out to pasture. One thing though, I'm just curious. How many of you are over 80? Can you remember a young Canada that became a country after proving herself in the first world war? What kind of people were there back then. Do we really know, except to make shallow remarks about has beens? I've heard these Canadians were quite well respected the world over. They more than carried their weight during the awful WW years. When the Germans started using mustard gas to kill the allies in WW I, the canadian troops pissed in their hankerchiefs, tied the wet hankerchief around their face to protect from the gas and kept fighting. What kind of person does that? Some shallow know it all that thinks in terms of left wing/right wing who wouldn't join the army unless a government they approved of was in power? Or maybe someone who says that they may kill me today but not before I defend this patch of mud with my blood. In WWI, our population was eight million and the army we sent over was over 619,000. And they volunteered, they weren't drafted. http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?s...canada/Canada19 In WWII we sent over 1 million soldiers while our population was 11 million. The rest of the population ate little and worked hard to support the war effort with daily sacrifice that I think most of us in Canada today would find unbearable. At the time we had the 3rd largest navy and the 4th largest air force. http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?s...anada2/epilogue Our military forces today are but a fraction of that while our population is over 29 million. We don't understand what it means to go to war.

So, those of you who see a left wing bias in Canadian MSM(mainstream media), how do you suppose it got that way? The old saying, "Birds of a feather flock together" is certainly true, but how did liberal minded people start to dominate the media in Canada?

When Bush was saying your either with us or against us it wasn't a broad 'decree' to the rest of the world about everything, but about terrorism. Personally, I don't think it's the bottom line in U.S. policy anymore otherwise they'd attack Iran and Syria, to name a few. Further, it wasn't a threat, just a black and white analysis of others' responses. For instance, Germany strongly disagreed with the U.S. over Iraq, but the U.S. didn't then respond with an attack on Germany. Are they bent on converting the rest of the world to their 'way'? It seems to me that as far as capitalism and democracy based governing goes, much of the world is operating the same way already. All of Europe, lots of Asia, most of the Americas, everywhere you look. They didn't take over the world, but evolved a new way of existing as a country. And giving people freedom gives them hope and motivation to chase their dreams. So many other countries copied this system. There are countries, such as China, who remain haters of democracy, thinking that people shouldn't be given freedom, but the U.S. is not figuring out how to 'take them over', but are trading with them. Personally I think that enriching the country that hates you and would like to see you fall as a power (as I believe China does the U.S.) is kind of short sighted, but that's me.

In recent history (50 yrs) the U.S. would attack to stop communists from taking over. IMO communism had more in common with this violent wing of Islam than America. Wait and see what China does. After 9/11 it became a priority to take out those who the U.S. thought were responsible for the attack. Many different presidents have been involved in the last 50 years with not all of them being christian, so the religious holy war thing doesn't fit. The bible doesn't advocate holy war, the Koran does. The methods that you want to put under the microscope, so to speak, seem dissimilar too. Americans aren't trying to bring down a government by taking out as many civilians as they can, or strapping explosives to themselves and getting into a crowd of muslims. But at the end of the day, is it any different? To me, the end result that the U.S. wants to achieve shows that they are not the same.

Politicians go against their ridings wishes all the time. Only on moral issues is this seen to be improper. Svend has been pro gay long before his Burnaby riding started agreeing with his position since he's been in politics since the late 70s. And that was a true incident I cited about the sign, it shows him to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, among other things. You can find many examples when Svend has had brushes with the law if you google around. A jaw dropping example of an MP going against their ridings wishes was when Belinda Stronach was elected as a Conservative but when the Liberals offered her a ministry portfolio, changed her loyalties last summer because the price was right. And many examples exist of Prime Ministers doing what they think is in the best interests of Canada even though the majority of Canadians may not agree. Trudeau brought in the metric system, Mulroney brought in the GST and NAFTA, Chretien cut payments to the provinces, gutted the military, and did the Adscam thing in Quebec. Oh yah, he didn't bother to mention the Quebec thing (are you surprised?). And our supreme court has been involved in social activism regarding the gay marriage thing. I can't remember if we yet have any laws directing the judges on theses matters but they've still managed to invent protection for gay marriage. Whether gay marriage is right or wrong is not the issue here. That the supreme court has been holding the torch for gay rights before there were any laws permitting them to do so is the problem. So, I don't have any problem if a politician finds once in a while that his conscience dictates he vote differently than his riding. You don't just elect a vote, but a thinking person who may have facts at their disposal that we do not.

Perhaps the U.S. administration has been waging a PR campaign against Chavez. I'm not, nor have I tried to defend their actions. All I am saying is that Venezuela is unstable. This hurts their oil industry and sometimes production. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.