Wilber

Why is it the question is always framed in that torture is the only option for protecting the troops? You are the one who keeps doing that. This was the question you were asked.

It isn't a simple question. How is that torture of detainees helps Canadians troops? How is it that anyone who asks you that question is in favour of torture?

Why does it have to be either/or? Are you supporting torture? It was a simple question, why answer it with another question?

Beauty

I am coming from Planet earth, as a member of the human race, I am wishing for a European tour, after a lovely oceanic cruise, because I work to much! Does that answer, your totally irrelevant to the topic question? Yup

Betcha can't wait to bow to Beijing and Tokyo instead. Things will be so much better. wow, a smear, how original. I just can't figure out where the hell you are comming from or what you are wishing for and why.

Yes they might but there is no doubt about it if we and our allies just bail. Just hoping won't cut it I'm afraid.

It's no use denying that some people here are big on torture. As far as what I think about the mission, I have posted all along that we should be able to move off the front at some point with some faith that someone else will take our place. In previous world wars and other hot spots, Canada was able to rotate off the front line in favour of fresh troops from our allies. Where are our allies? I think we should serve our time to 2009 but Tories are preparing up to 2012. Really, one could just as easily say that those who are in a rush to leave Afghanis to the tender mercies of the the Taliban are the ones "gung-ho on torture". We walk away because we are in a snit because some of our so called allies aren't in a rush to help us out? That makes just walking away OK? If we are doing the right thing by being there until 09, we will still be doing the right thing by staying after. The reason for being there doesn't just magically change on a certain date. During the world wars our troops did rotate in and out of the line just as they do now. The only difference is they didn't get to go home until the war was over. They kept going back until it was finished. Whether they were replaced by other countries or other Canadians wasn't a consideration, just dictated by the military necessities at the time. Like now.

" Gung -ho on torture". To begin with, that is utter crap. If this issue had never come up would you be in favour of continuing this mission? You know you wouldn't.

Betcha can't wait to bow to Beijing and Tokyo instead. Things will be so much better.

I don't know. Bad mouthing officials is part of most sports I can think of.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? Most eloquent.

Right or wrong, the Greens have always been able to make a claim to the high ground. May is diving off head first. I think many people have seen them as a place to park their vote when they are not happy with the two main parties and can't bring themselves to vote NDP. She is doing a good job of blowing that IMO.

Actually they don't, and why should they.

Now Bush invented fixed election dates? Come on, can't you do better than that? You wanna try that again? Canada is not a republic but Steve keeps on trying to change Canada to mirror the neighbours south of us, especially the republican party. BC is not a republic either but has fixed election dates. Sounds like some other provinces are following suit. They aren't republics either. If Chretien had done it when Clinton was pres I guess it would be OK right? Of course Chretien never would have because then he wouldn't have been able to call three elections on his own whim. Some things are just a good idea.

Gee, if no one had vehicles we could get rid of the military. Who'd a thunk it.

Now Bush invented fixed election dates? Come on, can't you do better than that?

Ya have to wonder some MP's ever think about how stupid they are going to sound before they shoot off their mouths. Makes you wonder how they got elected. The report I read said Doan's alleged comments were directed at the officials.

If she wasn't calling someone a Nazi, why was she using the word as a comparison? She obviously doesn't know the forum rules. The first to use "Hitler" or "Nazi" loses. She should know that rule applies to a large degree in the court of public opinion.

Don't the players have a big say in who will be their captain?

Regardless of the debate, it makes sense to reduce our consumption and emissions, not just from a global warming and polution point of view but an economic one as well. It just makes sense and done properly will make us more competitive, our country more livable and in small way, the rest of the world. One has to keep two things in mind regarding Canada's position in the global scheme of things. 1. We produce 2% of the worlds CO2 emissions. We aren't going to save the world no matter what we do, so let's not shoot ourselves in the foot pretending we can.. 2. Because of our climate and small population spread over a huge area, Canada will never be low on the list of per capita emitters.

She may not have called Harper a Nazi but she most definitely called whoever she thinks Harper is appeasing Nazis. Does that make anyone who receives a benefit from government that she doesn't agree with a Nazi in her eyes? Not very bright, Ms May.

Not many people would argue that the globe is not warming, the debate is why, how much influence man is having and whether we can do anything meaningful to correct it. The debate over causes and consequences will go on for a long time because we are working with theories and projections so neither side will ultimately prove to be 100% correct.

For most people vehicles are a necessity in this country, not an option like booze or smokes. You speak as though another "sin tax" will solve our problems. If you really want to reduce emissions you have to provide transportation systems that are more energy efficient. I could see congestion taxes if there were enough viable alternatives to vehicle use but until that happens, it is just a money grab. When I go into Vancouver, unless there are a bunch of us I try and park on the outskirts and take Skytrain into the city because I don't really like driving downtown. Trouble is you can't find a parking spot in the park and rides on a weekday. The last time I went, I ended up finding a spot on the street over a half mile from the station. It was a nice day and I wasn't in a rush so I didn't mind the walk. Otherwise, forget it. If I want to go all the way on transit, the West Coast Express commuter train from here only runs during the morning and evening rush on weekdays. It is also very expensive if there is more than one person. Other than that, the only option is a car and a tax won't make any difference.

You and August have two different things going. He seems to think everything should be user pay. That was what I was addressing. People and goods have to be moved. Taxing people for a necessity without providing alternatives or without using that revenue to make movement more efficient will not reduce emissions. If efficient public transportation is not available, people will continue to use their vehicles. People are not going to spend 4 hours commuting back and forth to work every day if they can do it in 2 or less with a car, regardless of what it costs.