Wilber

I'm a little suprised no one picked me up on the fact France doesn't belong to NATO.

I suggested earlier that a rapid deployment force stationed near Afghanistan might have been preferable to what exists now. Everyone says Canada can't let NATO down. NATO is letting Canada down at the moment. Where is near Afghanistan? Much of NATO is letting the rest down, particularly Germany and France as they have the means to make the biggest difference.

The Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Greeks and a quite a few French units fought pretty hard before they were overwhelmed. In western armies a division normaly numbers around 10,000. My arithmetic would make 10 divisions about 100,000 not a million. Still, not a number to sneeze at.

If you hold a citizenship in a country such as Syria or Iran you are leaving yourself open to being treated like one if you go there. The issue is not what happened to him in Syria but how he got there.

Look at the graphs for interest rates over time. Governments whatever their stripe are largely victims or beneficiaries of their times. Mulroney governed through a period of the highest interest rates in modern history. Chretien benefited from the lowest rates since WW2. The difference in what it cost to service the debt during their terms was huge and Mulroney was still trying to meet federal obligations to policies that were largely implemented by Liberal governments, like sharing health care costs 50/50 which the Chretien government abandoned. Not to say Chretien didn't do anything right but you're example is simplistic.

I'd prefer if things were quiet there actually. Who wouldn't except the Taliban?

Perhaps before shooting off your mouth you should contact your local police department and ask them to take you out for a ride. The local police here are pretty good about sending interested civilians out with a patrol officer for a 12+ hour shift. Try for a Friday or Saturday night. You might learn something.

There is a huge jump from an eye test to psychiatric and psychological screenings. Who would be responsible for paying those costs? The other tough thing about that requirement is what happens when the normal everyday joe snaps because of a serious life trauma. Should these tests be required yearly? It would be more expensive but do we want a system that might have a chance of working or one like we have now. Window dressing.

Al Qaeda is not defending Iraq, it is competing for power in Iraq. When it attacked Madrid it was competing for power in Iraq? How so? Why are Al Queda and other insurgents in Iraq killing scores more Iraqis than non Iraqis? Is that defending Iraq? How so?

This gun was registered so what does it have to do with the gun registry other than point out that in this case registering a gun did nothing to prevent a crime?

Why did al-Qaeda defend Iraq? Al Qaeda is not defending Iraq, it is competing for power in Iraq.

Given their jocular response to the Bali slaughter, maybe not a bad idea. What jocular response? We invade Indonesia because terrorists blow up people in Indonesia? What kind of logic is that? Indonesia arrested and charged quite a few people related to the bombing.

Both Spain and Britain were part of the invasion of Iraq and that made them primary targets. The invasion of Iraq was a colossal error in judgment. The terrorists were not originating there. There were no WMD's. It is like saying the Ottoman Turks are besieging Vienna. They are Muslims. Indonesians are also Muslins so lets invade Indonesia.

Other way around here which also has it's drawbacks. The Criminal Code being a Federal jurisdiction makes it difficult if not impossible for regions to adequately deal with problems more specific to them. You wind up with municipalities trying to deal with crime through bylaws when it is a Federal responsibility.

That's fairly nonsensical, I am predicting the results of the current actions. Well that and pointing out the accuracy of my past predictions on this and similar matters, so yes I am one of those "I told you so" types, we all have our crosses I guess. Not really, anyone can make a prediction, outcomes are determined by the people who act.

Certain parts of America have a "gun culture". Certain parts, such as where I live, do not. We're a big country with many cultures, all American, and none "multi". Perhaps a poor choice of words. Maybe the degree to which Americans in general accept guns as part of their culture would be more accurate.

Below the knee? We could get advice from the Taliban burka-measurers. Good idea.

Predictions are easy, actions are a little more difficult.

I'm not in love with the American gun culture any more than most Canadians but I think it is a stretch to blame Americans when Canadians decide to shoot each other.

The gunman in Montreal said the same. Does that mean we have to live in fear of anyone who wears a black trenchcoat? Wearing black trenchcoats should be a capital offense.

Good, a half assed commitment yields half assed results, if you're lucky.

I definitely think some are but it has become pretty obvious that Saddam wasn't one of them. His objectives were far more limited. The war was begun on a false premise. I supported it until it became obvious that the reason for starting it was a fairy tale (WMD's), then I felt like I had been had. I don't like being had. I also do not like those who cannot get past their anti Americanism in order to form an objective opinion on anything but that has nothing to do with the fact I now believe the invasion of Iraq was a really bad idea and that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc, flat out lied.

This was your post. How many liberal democracies are actively "fighting for the resources of other nations by buying and trading "partners" in those nations." in competition with other liberal democracies? Examples please. Just because countries have interests in different regions doesn't mean they are trying to deny access to others.

Britain was given the same option in 1940. What's your point? He's a creep but he was head of state of a sovereign nation. If we give the same option to any regime we don't like does that automatically make it OK to invade their country if they don't comply?

So why is war between liberal democracies so rare? I think that wars between liberal democracies are as prevalent as any other given the number of liberal democracies in relation to all the rest. The difference is that western democracies are the arms suppliers and stategists fighting for the resources of other nations by buying and trading "partners" in those nations. International diplomacy at it's best is keeping the casualty figures at home to a minimum while aquiring the food, energy, technology, etc. for ones own country. Name two in the last hundred years. Name one even unless you want to include wars like India and Pakistan.