Wilber

Not really, it didn't stop the Europeans when they built their global empires and an ICBM can cover it in about 15 minutes these days.

London and Berlin are well north of Toronto.

Far more Iraqis are killed by other Iraqis than by Americans.

I disagree. "Privileges" are what society chooses to grant individuals, rights are not. Would you think that in a society in which slavery was accepted, that society "chose" not to grant the slave the right to freedom, or has that society voilated a right which was inherent to that individual? I have a problem with the idea of a society granting "Privileges". That concept is Orwellian to me and sounds like you are being done a favour. An example is driving. It is often said that driving is a privilege. If one demonstrates that they are qualified to drive and abides by the laws governing driving, it is their right to drive, not a privilege.

Not doubt there are women who would be capable but I think Argus has the gist of it. Too many see a weak leader as being to their advantage and women who rise to that level are rarely weak. Unfortunately there are many places in the world where a woman would not be considered acceptable.

THANK YOU!!!! Not to worry "despicable" is Gerry's favorite word.

Not sure what you mean by Anglosphere or how Barbados was different other than the fact that much of its population are descendent's of slaves brought from Africa. Zimbabwe was also a British colony.

Some are failures some are not. Many were not paradises before they were colonized and were ruled by people like Mugabe or worse before Europeans arrived. The colonial era in Africa was quite short, 50 years in some cases so it didn't make many lasting fundamental changes in society.

I don't think crossing the floor should be banned. There will be times when an MP cannot reconcile their own beliefs with their party's position on certain issues to a degree which will allow them to stay in that party. On the other hand they should expect to take a lot of heat for it.

Well put, me to. I can't categorically say when a fetus becomes a person but I have no doubt there is a point when it does and that is not when it is born, IMO.

You think the military power represented first by the British Empire and then the US had nothing to do with that?

Neat

If you are interested in the Gurkhas you might enjoy a book by Byron Farwell titled The Gurkhas. They have a very interesting history and like most of his books, it's a good read.

If so, we truly are a shallow bunch, not to mention hypocritical and have no credentials to preach to anyone. Canada is supposed to be such a rich country, particlarly now with the huge demand for commodities. How does Australia with 13M fewer people continually outspend us on the military, both in dollars and percentage of GDP, while still racking up consecutive surpluses?

"Obscene profits" are a mater of opinion. To some people the word profit itself is obscene. Where would this tax money go. Are the oil companies bad guys just because their business is resulting in too many jobs in part of the country? That's logic I can't quite get my head around. I think I may have said this before. I was lucky enough to never be unemployed during my working career but to do it I moved across the country and back as well as leaving my family behind to work offshore on two occasions. I don't have a lot of patience with the "bring me a job" crowd for whatever reason. You go where you have to go and do what you have to do. If that means going to Ft McMoney and paying 250K for a mobile home in order to make a living, you do it. There will always be some who really are unable (there are people on social assistance in BC and Alberta to) but it is not reasonable to expect some to pay for others choices.

The Gurkha's are not an army. They are regiments within the British and Indian armies composed of Nepalese hillmen. The only time they were an army is when they fought the British. It took the Brits two tries before they beat them. After that the British did what they always did, hired the people who gave them the toughest time to fight for them. That is why there were so many Sikhs and Gurkha's in the Indian Army, both during the Raj and after.

Of course, the idea is ludicrous.

Government spending doubled during the Chretien years in spite of massive downloading to the provinces, privatization of such things as air traffic control turning responsibility for airports over to municipalities and the introduction of many user fees for other services. It probably had to be done but if interest rates had remained in the 18 to 20% range as they were in the eighties the country would be bankrupt by now no matter what any government could have done.

In 2003 Canada was 15th in total dollars when it came to military spending. As a percentage of our GDP we were 128th. We've got a hell of a long way to go before we become "geared to an arms economy", unless you consider Brazil, Turkey, India and Australia arms geared economies. All of which spent more than us. In 2004 Canada spent less than 10B US on defence. Those war mongering Ausies spent over 16B. For a country which likes to think of itself as a world player we have been enjoying a free ride for years. The jig is up. The rest of the world has figured us out.

I can remember when our forces had more than 100,000 .......The question is: how willing are able bodied young canadians to take the challenge? Hoiw willing are canadians to foot the bill? You can have low taxes You can have a large military But you can't have a lrge military and low taxes unless you want to take the US route and pass the bill to the next generation. Not so, you just spend less on something else. Our taxes are not lower than when we had a 100,000 man military. If you are going to talk the talk on an international stage you have to walk the walk to be taken seriously. I think many young Canadians will be willing to take the challenge if you give them something that they can really be proud of and they know has real support from their country, not just lip service as they have for the past 30 years.

Federal spending increased at a rate of 8.2% per year from 1999 to 2005. It increased 14.4% in 04-05 when Martin was trying to buy his job. Tories have forecast 5.4% this year and 4.1% next year, still way above the rate of inflation, hence cuts. Yes their priorities are different but that is why we have more than one party.

How long have the Conservatives been in power and how many pet projects have they established in that time?

I think 85,000 is minimum number for a country this size if it wants to command some respect in the world and live up to it's self styled status as a so called middle power. 58,000 was pretty pathetic. You could take every soldier, sailor and airman the country had and not fill Skydome or BC Place.

Interesting problem. In principle, I lean towards "if you can make the team you should be allowed to play" school. Of course that would have to apply to all teams including whose which are now women only. The downside is that if you opened all teams to both genders based on ability only, you would probably wind up with fewer women in the sport. There are some sports, equestrian and shooting come to mind, where men and women can and do compete with each other at the highest level and there are some where they cannot and don't. Maybe that's just the way it should be and the rest is all politically correct crap.

It is a 'social program' because it is a way to redistribute income from one group of Canadians to another. I don't think it is that Machiavellian. It's just another instance of people trying to live beyond their means. In this case a whole country.