Wilber

Whatever.

For one thing, when a party calls or forces an election, it has decided it doesn't really care about impending legislation. If it did, there wouldn't be an election. For another thing, the legislation could be held up in the Senate which is an appointed body with no term and is really answerable to no one. I think all politicians are in election mode to one degree or another at all times but from the time an election is called until the new government forms its cabinet, the country is being administered by civil servants and is essentially without a legislative branch, because the government lost its mandate when the election was called. As mentioned, a couple of provinces do have fixed election dates for their legislatures. In BC every four years, although technically a minority government could be forced into an election by the opposition in a shorter time, the government cannot call one. All our governments do have fixed terms. Five years for the Federal government but an election can be called or forced at any time in between.

Can someone explain to me, as an American, why I constantly hear that "Canadians don't want an election"? It seems to me that going to the polls is not much of a bother. Especially so with advance voting, etc. I personally go the polls a minimum of twice a year (regular Election Day and the school budget), and usually four times a year (those plus Village elections and on even number years a Democratic primary). It just doesn't seem like a big deal. Why do Canadians dislike it so much Your elections are held according to fixed terms. Personally I think Congressional elections every two is a bit much. When do they find time to govern if they have to spend so much time campaigning. In Canada a government can call an election at any time to try and renew their mandate if they think the political climate is right. In a minority situation the opposition can force an election for the same reason. My problem with it is whenevery it happens all legislation (representing a lot of time and work by many people) before Parliament goes in the dumpster, much of it never to be seen again, the country stops being governed from a legislative point of view and a few hundred million comes out of the public pocket to pay for the thing. IMO a very selfish action invariably motivated by nothing more than the prospect of political gain.

Depends on how bad the Bloc and NDP want an election. The Liberals can't defeat the government without them.

Lets try that link again. AA 77

Poly You can believe whatever you want but as a recently retired airline pilot who spent the last part of his career flying Al Quaeda's weapon of choice, including during the summer of 2001 and who certainly can't say there are are none, I can honestly say that I have never met an airline pilot who believed in any of these theories. I think this guy has got it about right. AA 77[/url

deleted

I didn't see any parts of anything on the photos of the lawn right after the crash. Subsequent photos do show debris, but if the plane hit the Pentagon where are the engine marks or holes in the building ? Why is the hole so small and how did a hole get created through three of those thick Pentagon walls where the light fusalage supposedly hit yet no damage where the engines could have hit. ? To me it doesn't look as if a plane hit the Pentagon, but the Pentagon attack was so covered up afterwards with the removal of evidence that nothing can be gleaned from this accident scene. Although many cover ups occured at the NY scenes there is still enough known evidence to prove MIHOP conclusively. I'm inclined to go with the unbiased experts on this: From http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquesti...ommissionreport "General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Commanding General of Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), 1981 - 1984. Also commanded U.S. Army’s Intelligence Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Video: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" http://www.undersiegemovie.com ... " The parts wouldn't be on the lawn, they would be embedded well into the building. The heavier parts, engine, landing gear etc would have been embedded the farthest and at the speed the aircraft impacted the building only the largest pieces would have been recognizable. If you look at the aircraft, the engines are mounted quite close to the fuselage. The landing gear is mounted between the engines and the fuselage. It would not have made a large hole. What happened to American 77 and all the people on it on Sept 11, 2001 if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

Ya got that right. It's not even representative of BC. Vancouver is the only place they can elect anyone out here.

I've been watching this on the tube for the last couple of hours and haven't heard the west mentioned once. It is all about Quebec and Ontario. You'd think this bunch doesn't know a third of the country exists. And they wonder why they have trouble electing people here.

I beleive that planes hit the other buildings but a missile hit the Pentagon. I know 911 was an inside job from what happened in NY, the other locations do not provide conclusive evidence of an inside job but they do prove the government was lying. The fact that a missile or plane hit the Pentagon shows that it was permitted to by the governemnt otherwise it would have been shot down. I do not know what hit the Pentagon but think it was a missile. Where is there evidence of a plane hitting it ? Lots of highly qualified people to look at such things think it was a missile. There are eye witnesses to everything surrounding the Pentagon crash. If you wanted to say it was martians there is probably a witness for that. Where is the evidence it was a missile? It must have been a missile loaded full of 757 debris including major engine parts and complete landing gear assemblies. You didn't answer the question though, what happened to American 77 and all the people on it on the morning of Sept 11, 2001 if it didn't hit the Pentagon.

There is a lot of physical evidence of an aircraft hitting the Pentagon in the form of B757 parts and there are also eye witnesses. But never mind all that, what happened to American 77 and all the people on it?

A little premature don't you think? That's over two years down the road. If he is writing the mission off that far in advance, he should be advocating getting them out today.

Considering the amount of debate going on concerning the issues Cohen raised and what he meant by them, it seems he has accomplished something.

War is not a civilized activity, it is a last resort. It is a last resort - but by all international law - it most certainly IS a civilized activity. Or at least we fight it that way. You are confusing MURDER with WAR. You should take some law courses. What do you mean we? Surely you mean he. By your own example you admit that as far as the opposition is concerned this is a "total war" yet you seem to think that a half assed gentlemanly response is an adequate way of dealing with it when the opposition recognizes no such limitations. 'We' as in the people that hope the western world wins? is that wrong? I hope we do win. Am I not able to have an opinion in the war because I'm not on the front lines fighting it? if so - what about you? I happen to maintain that we can win this war without having to resort to murderous intentional tactics. Perhaps you should vote for the party that allows our armed forces to do this in the next election if you are truly looking out for their welfare as opposed to making them morally equivelent to murderous terrorists. If I have misrepresented you - feel free to post your own thoughts on what our soldires should be doing there. Of course you are entitled to an opinion but you should also expect it to be challenged. The definition of war is intentional murderous tactics. That's why we send them there with the best training and equipment we can, designed specifically for killing people. I'm not saying our military should have a carte blanch to do anything they want but if we aren't willing to let them do what is required to win, nothing more, we should never have sent them there in the first place. I was asked if genocide was acceptable in order to win a war. If genocide is the only way you can win and you are not prepared to commit genocide, then you should not be involved in that war. It's a serious business, not a parlor game. We have sent them there and ultimately the combatants will decide how it will be fought regardless of what we arm chair quarterbacks and moralists say because they can't afford that luxury and have no other option.

War is not a civilized activity, it is a last resort. What do you mean we? Surely you mean he. By your own example you admit that as far as the opposition is concerned this is a "total war" yet you seem to think that a half assed gentlemanly response is an adequate way of dealing with it when the opposition recognizes no such limitations.

To fight a war without the intention of winning is a crime in itself. To ask people to kill and be killed without doing everything possible to secure a victory is a crime against them. If you aren't prepared to do that, you have no business fighting in the first place. Gentlemanly war went out in the 18th century. Starting with the Napoleonic Wars, nearly very war fought since has been a total war involving whole populations with civilian as well as military personnel being considered legitimate targets at one time or another.

Winning is far more important than fighting. Winning is the only reason to fight. Asking people to fight if there isn't every intention of winning by whatever means necessary is more criminal than anything the combatants may do.

More to the point it is the burden of those who have to fight for a civilized society.

You can judge them anyway you want but it won't matter because they don't care, will be dead and therefore beyond your reach. Regardless of how you feel about suicide bombing this bill is a useless waste of time. Good point but I get the impression he fears more restrictions being put on how he is allowed to fight people who recognize no restrictions. I think that is always a valid fear for people who play by the rules when they are forced to fight those who don't recognize any rules.

I'm not defending suicide bombing but I do see Army Guy's point. Before you know it, his actions could be declared criminal by the politically correct. No doubt the Taliban also see themselves as defending their country and way of life from the invader. I doubt they see suicide bombing as cowardly or illegal, therefore they will care less about a Bill presented by a political appointee in a country on the other side of the world. Whether their actions are legal or not will mean nothing to someone about to blow themselves up, particularly someone from a different country, religion and culture who could care less what the Parliament of Canada thinks. Just another Bill that sounds nice but means nothing and will accomplish nothing.

What constitutes a suicide attack? History is full of instances where attacks have been made by military units of all nations when although suicide was not their intention, they knew survival was unlikely if not impossible. The Spartans at Thermopylae knew it was a one way trip before they left home. Were they criminals?

If you want to use that criteria you can say the same for any of our governments. If they can only act in a manner that every Canadian supports there is no reason to have a government or military at all, because that will never happen.

I don't know if the Conservatives have changed it but the former government wouldn't even let them wear protective vests because it might upset the prisoners. Whatever they make, half should go to the victims of the crimes that put them there.

Nice try. You mean they didn't vote for it? No, I'm aware of the facts as you are. All but 15 Liberals voted for it. That doesn't change the fact that it was Stephen Harper's brainchild, and if negative fallout ensues it belongs more to him than anyone else. When are you sending him his case of Scotch?