Wilber

No, the analogy was used only in terms of how both processes would inform the public. why would you be opposed to a debate? Why would that hurt anything? If you were serving in Afghanistan and the message came down from your Parliament that what you were doing was not in the interests of Canada but you are going to remain there for another year anyway, because we have made commitments, do you think that would hurt anything? I agree that this kind of thing should be debated in Parliament but not after the fact.

You all should read this post again. Why? There is nothing in it. I'm sick of being told I sound like Bush/Cheney. I just have the common sense to know that a debate will accomplish nothing and that the vote will be favourable. And what if the vote isn't favourable? The world will put us about last on the list of semi-respected countries, most of them don't even listen ot us anymore because we've been marked irrelevant because of this behaviour. Afghanistan is in our best interest and the best interests of the world. I'd hate to see progress destroyed by a left-wing coalition in our government, set on isolating us from the world, of course, until Osama follows through on his commitments to attack us. We aren't there for corporate gains like the Americans, we aren't there because of some 20 year old political doctrine. We are there to help Afghani's and perserve our national defense. While I appreciate your use of fear mongering in regards to Osama attacking Canada; in truth, we can do nothing to prevent such an attack from occuring if someone wanted it to occur. Not even by playing superhero and removing all the poverty in the world. Last time I checked that's what the US has always prided itself on doing, playing superhero. Maybe isolationsim is the way to go.. yes.. I just find myself hopelessly cynical. sigh. Gee, the same people who crap on the US for being isolationist at the beginning of the two world wars are the same ones who want to go the same route as soon as the going gets a bit tough. Go figure.

Geoffrey is correct, the time to debate this was before we sent troops. We are committed under NATO and the UN for at least another year. To leave our troops there for another year knowing they do not have the support of their people and Parliament would be down right criminal and you couldn't blame any of them for walking out the door the second they hit Canadian soil. To pull them out know would send the message to the world that Canada is not a reliable ally and cannot be depended on to keep its commitments. Canada might just as well pull the pin on NATO and become a neutral. Unfortunately that could be very expensive, not only from a credibility point of view but neutrals by definition have no allies and so must take care of themselves. Sweden and Switzerland spend far more per capita on defense than Canada.

Wow, what did the Americans do to you? WW1 The US did join a little late but it wasn't really their war. WW1 was a European civil war between a bunch of colonial powers and Continental empires. Canada as part of the British Empire had no choice, we were in at the beginning whether we liked it or not. No, the US did not win the war but their addition of a million or so fresh troops to an exhausted allied force was the reason it ended in the fall of 1918. In their short time there 126,000 of them managed to get killed compared to 66,000 Canadians for the whole war. Canada certainly lost far more as a percentage of our population but 126,000 is not a number to be sneezed at. WW2 While the Empire and China did occupy a substantial portion of the Japanese army, it was the Americans who destroyed their navy, air force, their ability to wage war and took the war to Japan itself. Yes, the Americans did win the war in the Pacific. In Europe, their material help before they entered the war was substantial. The US navy was also escorting allied ships before they entered the war. They couldn't admit it at the time because of domestic politics. No, the Americans did not win the war but without them it would certainly ended differently. Without the US there would have been no landings in Italy in 1943 and more importantly no landing in France in 1944, if at all. Once Stalin's armies had defeated the Germans there would have been nothing between them and the English Channel were it not for D Day. It was predominately the US military which made sure the Warsaw Pact stayed on their side of the Iron Curtain for the next forty years. Nearly 300,000 Americans died in WW2. Korea It was the North who invaded the South, not the other way around. The war was sanctioned by the UN. The Americans nearly were chased out but recovered and after Inchon it was them who did the chasing until the Chinese entered the war resulting in eventual stalemate. Fifteen UN nations participated in the Korean War, the great majority Americans. When it came to paying the ultimate price over 54,000 were Americans followed by 717 Turks, 710 Brits and 309 Canadians. Fly into Seoul on a clear night sometime. South of the 38th parallel is a brightly lit, vibrant country. North of it is a black hole run by a dingbat who is willing to starve his whole country in order to have a 2 million man army and nukes. The Americans have maintained a substantial military force in Korea for over fifty years and even with the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan there are still around 30,000 or about half Canada's entire military stationed there. This is in addition to around 45,000 stationed in Japan. Tell us again how the US failed Korea. True, Americans tend to discount the contributions of others at times but if they want to do a little bragging, they have certainly earned the right. Perhaps you should bone up on your history a little.

The average new hire cop is in his early thirties. They must have at least two years of college and real life experience. Many have several years in such things as victims services or corrections before joining a police force. A large number of them have degrees and you would probably be surprised at how many have masters. Police forces actively encourage their personnel to upgrade their skills with time off to take courses and by providing tuition. Our police department usually has over a thousand applications of file and trains ten to fifteen new officers a year. I put it to you that there are people in this society who believe protecting your ability to walk down the street safely and sleep soundly at night is something worth doing. The majority of your police and your military fit that description. Some join the military just to challenge themselves or like many young people, they haven't figured out what they want to do with their lives and chose the military as a worthwile alternative to taking a bunch of college courses they may never want to use. None of them do it because they can't get a real job. Quote "You're quite mistaken. I do support and respect the military. But for what they do. I don't, however, expect young infantry soldiers to be broad minded intellectuals who consider history or precedents before pronouncing on government policy. I'm sure a few are - a very few - but I think I'm safe with this one as a general rule. And as I said above, one has to be careful about applying general rules to individuals. I'd judge your son on how he spoke and what he said, not on his uniform, whether he was an infantry grunt or a helicopter pilot." "I don't find it scary. But I don't think people are any more likely to expect great philsophical insights from your average cop than they are from your average infantry soldier. So I'm not sure what your point is." No contrtadiction here? You don't judge groups? Give me a break, you are doing it all the time. Excuse me if I interpret your self styled superior intelligence as flat out arrogance.

[quote name='Argus' date='Mar 4 2006, 06:21 PM' post='10 Yup. Jocks will be jocks, whether they carry guns or not. You're quite mistaken. I do support and respect the military. But for what they do. I don't, however, expect young infantry soldiers to be broad minded intellectuals who consider history or precedents before pronouncing on government policy. I'm sure a few are - a very few - but I think I'm safe with this one as a general rule. And as I said above, one has to be careful about applying general rules to individuals. I'd judge your son on how he spoke and what he said, not on his uniform, whether he was an infantry grunt or a helicopter pilot. You say you support and respect the military because of what they do. Don't you think what they do has anything to do with who they are? Yes I respect them but I expect them to be stupid. Some respect. Yup, Jocks will be jocks. I guess well educated jocks occupy the same niche as "infantry grunts". My son was an honors student, captain of his high school rugby and wrestling teams, voted his school's top junior and senior jock and was class valedictorian at his graduation. Although he didn't decide on the military, he has always felt a desire to serve his community (God knows why) so he went about doing what it took to become a police officer instead. I am extremely proud of his uniform and would have been just as proud if he had decided to be an "infantry grunt". I didn't advise him not to go into the military because of the military but because of the attitude this country has toward its military. Yes he carries a gun too, as well as pepper spray, a TAZER and a shotgun in his car. Scary what? Ah, broad minded intellectuals, whatever the hell that means. Actually it means the ability to justify just about anything. You say one has to be careful about applying general rules to individuals yet that is exactly what you do when you judge peoples opinions by what they do for a living. I don't agree with AG on the cartoons issue either but I could care less what he does for a living, whether he has a PhD or didn't complete high school. The same goes for you. Read the first sentence of your above quote and then read the second. Don't you see any inconsistency there?

Not sure what you are getting at here. The reality is, this country has two official languages and French is one of them. Maybe not the most practilce language depending on where you live but surely two languages are better than one no matter what they are. If you wish your child to learn something else, there is no law against it. For most people, Mandarin, Cantonese, Hindi, Punjabi, Japanese or Spanish would all be more practical than French in BC but no government should have to provide your child with an education in any language you choose. Or is your point that governments should not have to provide education in any language other than English?

You should have quoted and commented in context of the broader statements made by Argus. None the less... They aren't 9 out of 10 the brightest people... nor are 9 out of 10 of the Canadians (or anyone actually) I've talked to either. In fact, there are very few intelligent people involved in anything... genius is at what percentile of the scale? 95th? 96th? The rest are just average. I'm sure there is variety in the distribution between intelligent people in the forces and in society... but I know there are many bright soldiers (doctors, techs, and some general infantry folks) that are very smart people. It's just common sense that when recruiters have someone who seems very bright and well-educated they guide him or her towards something more technical, like air traffic control or at technical or mechanical maintenance. The CF needs people who can rebuild helicopter engines as much as it needs guys who dig holes and carry guns. And almost anyone can do the latter. So if they get some big kid with little education who doesn't seem very bright well - it's combat arms for him! Not saying all soldiers are uneducated and stupid by any means. Just saying that, by and large, well... they aren't Rhodes Scholars. As for sensitivity, urinating on each other for an initiation ceremony is not the mark of poets. And when some of them get together in bars it isn't to discuss the wholeness of the human spirit. They' re more apt to eat glass to show each other how tough they are, and then punch someone out. The Simon Fraser University swim teams have been banned from going to the NAIA championships this year and they are the defending champions. Why? Because of an initiation ceremony that allegedly included sticking certain objects up certain backsides. I've learned over the years that education is no guarantee against stupidity. Some of the dumbest things I have ever heard have come from so called well educated people. I have also learned to have a great deal of respect for someone who goes out of their way to do something well, regardless of how difficult or simple the task may seem. Even more so when it is something that I would not be willing to do myself, unless I had to. It is not an everyday occurrence and is a pleasure to see whenever it happens. I find your condescending attitude toward the people who do your country's most dangerous and dirty work insulting. When my son was thinking about joining the military, you were the kind of person I was talking about when I advised him against it. There is little respect or support from this country for it's military unless they wind up in a body bag and then it's mostly lip service.

I think what he really means is Ontario can't dominate the Senate like it so often can the Commons and he doesn't see any type of reform that would allow it. Therefore we should get rid of it.

Other than the timing, I see no difference between Emerson and Stronach. If Harper approached Emerson about the possiblity of switching before the election was over, IMO that would be unethical. If not, everything is fair in war and politics.

"My point was that, let's face it, infantry soldiers are not know as the world's great thinkers." But now you are stereotyping infantry soldiers which is what he is accusing people of doing to Muslims.

Or not supporting a terrorist group that's sole mission is the destruction of Israel. Sole desctuction of Israel. You know I am getting really tired of people using this excuse. Israel was not even a county before WWII. If anything the Islraelis should be kicked out of the reigion, It is clear they are not welcomed there. Palestine was a large country, then the virus was put in place and now it consumes most of the former country. But I would be called anit-semetic if I had actually said those things. Stop it, just stop it. Hammas was democraticly (if you will humour me) elected government. The people chose it. And now countires will just have to DEAL with it. Now onto Iraq and their civil war...Sectrian violence was predicted really, and it is getting worse. Try this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765456.stm where it said that the Bagdahd morgues are getting 780 to 1100 bodies a month for the last year. Just as an average, that is about 90,000 people who according to those officials, most have died due to some torture. Wake up people. It already started. Gangs running the streets in Iraq, just as they do in the burbs of L.A. (ok bad example) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765854.stm To me there is basicly no security, and the only one who can defend you is you and your gun. They were put there by the League of Nations and the UN. Kicked out to where? One reason Israel was formed is because they had nowhere. Many of them were survivors or descendent's of survivors of an attempt to exterminate them. Israel will never allow itself to deal from anything less than a position of strength because they know what is possible when you are at the mercy of those who don't like you. The Palestinians have a right to elect who they please but Hamas has never renounced its position on the destruction of Israel. Would you want your government to negotiate with any group that had as one of its stated goals, the destruction of your country? It's not all one sided, there are probably as many factions among Israelis that their government has to deal with, as there are Palestinian. They have their radicals as well. Not so long ago they had a Prime Minister assassinated by one. Palestine probably was a bad choice for a Jewish state but what were the alternatives? I used to work with a guy who was a career RAF pilot. He was based in Cypress flying fighters and flew during the Suez crisis in 1956. He said he thought Cypress would be a perfect place for a Jewish state. An island, easy to defend, no need to expand your borders to improve your security, plus the Greeks and Turks who live there don't like each other anyway. It was tongue in cheek but when you think about it, it does make a certain amount of sense.

It's unfortunate this thread seems to be changing from a debate on free speech to a critique of our military. I don't see a connection. Soldiers are entitled to opinions to, even when I don't agree with them.

Wasn't it the Russian backed President who tried to rig the election and poison his opponent who is now the President and wasn't it American pressure that had a lot to do with stopping it? Oh boy Wilber ol' buddy, you have half the story absolutely correct. Putin definitely influenced the election, using violence. So then we just influenced it in the other direction. This orange revolution wasn't as wide spread you might think, the election was still close even after the other man was painted a Russian sell-out. And now afterwards, many Ukrainians are concerned about the democratic policies of their newly elected leader. There is way way more to this story then you heard on CBC, Global or CTV. Reading European papers and some translations of Ukrainian publications have painted a completely different picture. Apparently, the Russians domestically argue that they were trying to curb American influence in the election by their actions. We are all equally guilty in this mishap. Ya just can't keep all those old Cold Warriors down.

I beg to differ. I've seen hundreds of thousands of miles of highways. I've never seen a mile, or ten, that have jumped out to me as a killer highway. Driver error/apathy is the real problem. People do really stupid things in their cars every day and don't realize it. I can't count the number of times per day cars cut in front of me, stomp on their brakes in front of my truck and then turn right a fraction of a second before I would have hit them. What these people don't see is that that manoever put them within an inch of their losing their life. When a truck hits a car we don't count injuries, we count fatalities. Those who have tangled with a truck and lived to tell about it were the lucky recipient of a miracle. And what's really scary is that there are a lot of drivers that are even more careless around smaller vehicles. People aren't aware of the limitations of their vehicle - 4x4 drivers are the worst. They have no clue that though they can maintain a higher speed that they can't stop any faster. Still more people aren't aware of the limitations of the vehicles around them - specifically drivers of cars have no clue what larger vehicles can and cannot do and put their lives and the lives of others in danger because of it. People tailgate more today than I have ever seen. And if these factors were not enough, people are increasingly allowing themselves to be distracted by cell phones and other such devices. I'm not trying to say all of us truck drivers are innocent, because we're not. But we do have one thing on our side. We're not the ones causing most of the accidents. We cause only 30% of accidents compared to nearly 70% for drivers of cars. We drive over 1000 safe miles for every safe mile a car drives. Having said that, I think we all have much room for improvement. I wouldn't argue with that but what does it do with the fact the Sea to Sky highway is old, out dated and not up to handling the traffic that uses it, especially in the winter when the weather is poor and it is prone to washouts and slides. Too many people die on that highway and a lot of them are in that 70%, many of who are victims of the 30%. Of course if we got rid of all the drivers, it wouldn't be a problem but then we wouldn't need a highway because Squamish, Pemberton and Whistler Blackcomb wouldn't exist.

Are you joking with this crap? Try taking some responsibility for yourself and your country. The US isn't able to "give" you democracy and then make life great. Nobody said living in an open, capitalist, democratic society is easy and that it will solve all of life’s problems. Unfortunately your mindset of "The US is the problem we aren’t better off" is probably why things aren't working in the first place. You should instead be saying "What can “I” do to bring prosperity and democracy to my country". So bringing Democracy to Iraq was the wrong thing to do then? This thread is about the Ukraine, discuss Iraq in the million other threads on the topic. Our support and interference in the Ukrainian elections (Canada's too!) was disgusting. Let the Ukrainians decide for themselves, I believe them capable. Wasn't it the Russian backed President who tried to rig the election and poison his opponent who is now the President and wasn't it American pressure that had a lot to do with stopping it?

Ask Army Guy and BubberMiley. I wouldn't want to offend anyone.

Exactly! LOOK AT WHAT EXPO DID TO THE CITY OF VACOUVER! The entire site was sold to a foriegn investor for a DOLLAR. If you've got enough cash kicking around to buy a 600 sqaure foot condo for $500,000, then your apathy is understandable. What's your alternative? Do you think condos in Yaletown would be cheaper if the developer had paid 10 billion for the land? Actually Li Ka-Shing paid 145 million for the land. Peanuts compared to what it is worth today and a good deal back then but that was 20 years ago and nobody else seemed willing to pay more at the time. I suppose the city could have just sat on the land, let the facilities go to seed and got no revenue from any of it. I guess they figured there would be more long term gain if the land was developed.

And this benefits us how? If you live in Calgary and own property or have a business there I should think you would know.

Creative accounting should be an Olymoic event. No modern Olympics has turned a profit. The '88 games were only profitable if you exclude all subsidies received from federal, provincial and municipal governments for Olympic venues. The Olympics themselves may not have been profitable but look what they have done for Calgary since the Olympics. Look what the Calgary facilities have done for the Canadian Olympic team. Look at the number of other country's team members who train there.

Well, you're making the point that sectarian violence could increase if the Americans leave. I suppose it might. There is a great deal of expert opinion at the moment which says the Americans are also increasing sectarian violence with thier presence because of the resentment it's causing (ie. Sunnis see Shiites as being supported by Americans). I think the violence will drastically decrease if Americans leave. My opinion, but I think there's a lot more evidence to back it up than there is for your own. Maybe so but it is easy for us to spout off when we know we are in no danger.

The Kurds are living peacefully in the North. The fact that 16% of them approve of attacks on American forces is still quite surprising. Differentiating between the Shiites and Sunnis is interesting, but the conclusion is the same. 41% is still a VERY high number of people to be saying they approve of Attacks on American forces. Do you agree that an American presence is increasing violence? The only way we would know if the American presence is increasing violence is for the Americans to leave. My own feeling is that only violence against Americans will decrease if they leave. There will be a hell of a fight for control between the majority Shiites and the Sunnis who ran the country under Saddam and want to do so again. They just want the Americans out so they can really get at it. As usual the Kurds will be caught in the middle. Just my opinion but right now it is as good as anyone else's.

You'll have to excuse me wilber, i'm a moron, with little education. I've read your site and yes those pictures are insulting. but then again that is what you expected me to say was it not. And if we were on the play ground where trading names or insults was exceptable then i could see your piont. However we are not, we are supposed to be responsible adults. Do you think we are justified to sink to thier level and start trading insults in our media...what next do we start burning buildings ,killing people. Perhaps we as a nation could respond to those moderates in such a way that is not insulting. So that they may try to take action to get thier extremist under control. or atleast distance themselfs from thier actions. Instead we have chosen to insult them all ensuring that further violence happens or driving the moderates into thinking that "we" the west are no better, and perhaps violence is the right way to solve this. No I don't think we are justified in sinking to their level by burning buildings and killing people and neither are they. That is the whole point. That is why cartoons like the Danish ones get printed. To point out that burning, killing and bombing people who do not share your faith or even your interpretation of a faith is not justifiable. I'll say it again, the Arab media has a colossal amount of gall to be critical of that Danish paper when you look at the vicious crap they print. If you have a problem with someone pointing that out with what was really a very mild example of their own kind of garbage, that's tough. Anyone who considers themselves a moderate would have no trouble understanding that. You are not talking about moderates, you are talking about people looking for an excuse to get pissed off. I do think I am entitled to know what they consider insulting. Especially when some people are trying to tell me it threatens my country. I don't think I should just have to take your word for it. As JS has said, if all it takes to get a whole country to shut up is to threaten it with violence, our so called democracy doesn't mean very much. When I am in someone else's country, I take care not to offend them and to obey their laws. When I am in my own country, I reserve the right to say whatever I dam well please as long as it is within our laws. That is what my father and my grandfather fought for in two world wars. My old man is pushing 90 and just loves writing letters to editors. While he doesn't indulge in personal insults, he doesn't worry about offending people when he believes he is right. Radical Islam has already decided violence is the right way to solve this. That is why we are where we are.

Hope you folks can keep this nonsense confined to the East and not infect the rest of us.

No. No No. So you would not avoid a possible "shitstorm" or not run whenever someone objects to your own countrymen exercising there freedoms, if you see it to be in your own interest to do so. Isn't that what many Canadians love to accuse the US of, not sticking up for others unless it is in their interest? Poorly drawn, but drawn to provoke a reaction. The Arab cartoons were drawn to provoke hatred toward Israel and Jews. Do you mean self-righteous? If they were righteous, then they're righteous. I don't presume to understand muslim culture one whit. I think the people who drew the cartoons understand it better than I. They knew they were offensive. Do I think the radical muslim reaction was justified? No. OK, self-righteous. I agree. And Ezra Levant is still free to pick and choose what he publishes. Like I said, I don't think he should be compelled to refrain from printing them. He should make that choice himself. If it was something more important than crappy cartoons and our freedom was truly at risk, then I would say it's in my self-interest to print them. Otherwise, I don't see how we have anything to gain. Perhaps Levant should have published several of the Danish and Arab cartoons side by side so people could judge for themselves who is the most offensive and the most offended, instead of knuckling under to the group which makes them most noise like the rest of our media and its apologists.