Nocrap

I'm not getting any, but since I transfer credits to my husband, he will do OK. Down from last year because I had to claim the $ 100.00 per month 'childcare' now that we are raising our grandson. We netted $ 8.33 per month from that. I'm going to Disneyland!

I agree that it is too complex an issue. I suppose if the Canadian government is working as it should than the House of Commons has the real control. However in the case of the New Conservatives, Harper keeps a pretty tight rein on his MP's so they all pretty much speak with one voice, eliminating 120+ votes. This is why in many ways a minority is best, especially in troubling times, so that one party can't take us down a road that could lead to real trouble. We've seen this with Kyoto, the Cons attempt to deprive Canadians of basic human rights ('Anti-Terrorism' extension), etc. With a majority, a dictatorial PM would definitely have too much power.

There aren't many 'fat cats' at the Fraser Institute, I think you have a very big misconception about how much a public policy analyst makes. Sure some of the senior fellows are old big business men and government officials, but this is in all organizations. Someone has to pay the bills to keep the lights on and the phone bills paid. Where is your evidence of a connection between the NCC and Fraser Institute? Many people are members of both, clearly, but there isn't a formal link just to let you know. I love the conspiracy theorists! There are several links actually. The NCC were behind Mike Harris' election as Premier of Ontario with their 'Common Sense Revolution'. His government with ringleaders John Baird and Jim Flaherty proved to be the most corrupt ever to hit the province. Mike Harris now writes for the Fraser Institute. Many of the largest contributors to Fraser have been Reform Party supporters for years and according to Harper's biography the Reform Party has always been propped up by the NCC. Also in the bigot Tom Flanagan's book on Preston Manning he mentions that the Institute helped Manning in planning his economic platform.

One would think our NEW government is trying to make us slip, eh? After all they are always saying: Canadians are stupid, Canada is a thrid rate country, etc etc..perhaps they want to make us what they believe we are? That canada is number one, again illistrates that Canadians are not stupid and we as a peoples in our country have been making the correct decisions for ourselves historically. It is certainly sad, that the Harper government, and their supporters, want to destroy a country that is ranked number 1 in the world. I agree. I have always been proud to be Canadian and absolutely hate Harper is doing to our country. If he ever gets a majority I'm sure well be flying the stars and stripes, or at least share ranking with the US.

The PM and family have to have security guys at all time. (Imagine for a moment that you have two guys in suits with you at all times and the two guys need to eat and sleep somewhere.) The PM has to have a communications person any time she/he is in public where there are journalists, to have a record of what exactly was said. The PM is wise to have a gofer or two also. I note that the newspaper link above said nothing about tickets for Harper's security guys, PR guy or gofers. Look, the Prime Minister of Canada cannot go down to the corner store and buy a pack of smokes like the rest of us. And if the PM goes to a televised hockey game in a Stanley Cup series, I think that's public business but I'll trust Harper's judgment on this. In political terms, if this is Harper's LAX haircut moment, then it's better now than later. As Clinton said, "I'm not that kind of guy." Nor is Harper. Nocrap, there were some 20,000 people watching the game in Edmonton. Most of these people paid for their ticket with their own money - even Harper. By all accounts, everyone enjoyed the evening. Harper then flew on to a UN convention in Vancouver. Several thousand were in attendance and not one of them paid the convention fees, hotel costs or airplane ticket out of their own pocket. For many of these people, it was a free vacation to Vancouver. I'm certain more was accomplished in Edmonton than in Vancouver, where frankly, I think nothing was accomplished other than some people having a nice vacation. I don't know how Harper is going to do it but I won't begrudge him a flight or two if it means he can make Edmonton events more likely and cut out the waste of Vancouver events. I agree that he needs a small entourage, but give me a break. How many of those good old boys would be going to the conference and how many were just looking for a night out at Canadians' expense. And his PR people only said that the tickets were paid by the PM's office. I'd like to see the cancelled cheques. I'll bet we forked out for those too, although I'm sure somebody is scrambling as we speak to cover it up. Same old, same old. Get caught with your hands in the cookie jar and start singing 'Oh, Canada'. This was what it was and no amount of backtracking will convince us that Harper was only trying to be patriotic.

So Harper has shown Canadians what it really means to be accountable. Using his clout he was able to secure tickets for a sold out game 7. I can live with that. Assumed that only the 'Boys' needed a night out and that women don't like hockey or a night out. I can even almost live with that. But using a luxury government jet at taxpayers' expense to chauffer his cronies. Link No way. Just one more example of the wide gap between what he says and what he does. If anyone else tried something like that he'd be on it like the CPC on the oil industry payroll. This was not about showing support for a Canadisn hockey team. I believe there are lots of flights into Edmonton. This was simply Harper being Harper. He must have felt like George Bush on Airforce One. Ironic that he can take a defense department jet to a hockey game but can't drive a few miles down the road to honour fallen Canadian soldiers as they arrived in Trenton. So glad he's got his priorities straight and that his defense department spending is going to good use.

The so-called ethics bill is one of the biggest deceptions in Canadian history. (Next to Reform Harper's 'I'm a Tory'). The timing was designed to impede the Liberal leadership race and keep the Liberals in financial straits. As for the CPC only getting small cheques. You'd best check elections Canada website. They received more large donations (maximum $ 5,000 but in many cases husbands, wives and sometimes even children coughed up the maximum to make family dontations run anywhere from 10-20,000 dollars. Naturally, they were corporate execs, mostly from Alberta Oil or Private Healthcare hopefuls. The 1,000 limit will only work if the names are STILL MADE PUBLIC. Never should they be able to hide their identity. Harper is crafty and with Baird helping to draft his Accountability Act...boy are we in trouble. Senators do whatever it takes to postpone this bill until Canadians have had a chance to study it in depth. We at least deserve that.

It's a private member's bill, not a "Liberal" bill. It's got a lot of hoops to go through before it will be voted on, if at all. Hard to see it going anywhere. It's not in the order of precedence so it may just go nowhere at all. I agree. The fact that a Liberal MP is allowed to introduce a bill on behalf of their constituents speaks volumes. If any CPC MP tried to speak for...well...tried to speak...they'd be bound and gagged and locked away in the basement. This is just Democracy at work. I applaud Mr. Steckle for not simply following party line. I may not agree with his stand but do agree with his decision to stand up. Well done.

I couldn't believe my ears a couple of days ago at MDuffy...when all he could think and worry about was the possible violation of rights when he learned that the suspects were denied to get together to do their communal prayers! Sorry for the crass comment.....but he makes me wanna puke! Would you feel the same way if the young men were Christians and denied access to a Priest or Minister? We need to respect their basic human rights and absolutely go by the book on this one. We can't allow these young men to become martyrs. They need to have a fair trial and be punished to the full extent of the law if found guilty. We also need to stress that this was a ciminal act and not allow it to be tied into any political agenda. This only validates the actions of these young men. There is no validation for a planned mass murder, unless of course, you call it WAR!!!

Good Heavens, don't suggest that to our PM. He will probably mandate it, though I believe most of his caucus already aced such a course. However, this is not the time to start blaming particular ethnic groups. This was a planned criminal act and should be viewed as such. I heard one of the lawyers for the accused speak of the attitude of the public and indeed the government with regard to all Muslim youths. Apparently, they are now being questioned about their internet activities and political views. She asked whether when Mark Levine went on his rampage, if all ex soldiers from Quebec were profiled. Or when Paul Berardo was found quilty of horrendous sexual crimes, were all white male accountants potential suspects. Tim McVeigh acted out of protest to his government's gun control laws. Did the US then round up all young white men with brush cuts? This was a criminal act and had no links to any Terrorists groups other than a desire to help rid the Middle East of Invaders. It was said that when Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan got word of the arrests they became more dedicated to the 'mission'. Sadly it's the mission that prompted the planned criminal actions of 17 young Canadian men.

Couldn't agree more. And for the post below, A Canadian is someone who's paid taxed for atleast 15 years or is born on Canadian soil. People who target innocent lives in the name of Allah and overseas politics are NOT Canadian. I don't care what their peice of paper says. It's this that we must change to make our society strong again. Of couruse we don't have the leadership that will do this.. it would be policitcal suicide. I guess maybe we DO have to have a dissaster happen for people like you to finally admit that we are under attack and there is a crisis happening to Canada. (or maybe you just have to come here and see the 1000's here ghettoizing and segregated first hand). Always keep in mind - this country is private, it's a privelage to be here, and NOT a right for anyone to come as they please. This is our country. 'Their' country if you asked them is 'Pakistan' 'Jamaica' 'Tamilnadu' 'Bangledesh' 'Samolia'. What about people who take innocent lives in the name of Jesus, God or George Bush? North America has been a haven for immigrants for centuries and Canada is indeed a nation of immigrants. Every Canadian should be judged on their own merit and not their country of origin or their ancestors' country of origin. These young men acted out of desperation over their country's decision to continue the violent assaults on inncocent civilians and calling it a war against terror. They also acted out of anger over being blamed for the acts of a few militant muslims post 911. We need to put this into perspective.

I think that Farenheit 911 was an important documentary and it will be a shame if one small bit of newsreel does anything to discredit the message. I know that the same Republican PR firm that claims victory for Stephen Harper's recent win was also hired to downplay Moore and his films, so this is no doubt just a bit more PR for radical right Bush Administration (it's too late Georgie Boy). I feel for the soldier and his injuries but will lose respect for Mike Moore if he backs down.

By your simplistic formulation, no war can ever be right. Nothing is worth fighting for if it means people have to die. I wish this were so, I truly do. I'd love for the whole world to sink into a blissful, war-free delerium. Ain't gonna happen. There are things worth fight for, killing for, and dying for. There always were and there always will be, utopian wishes notwithstanding. No one is disagreeing with you on this, especially the American military, who take this sort of thing very seriously. That you conflate the goal of liberating Iraq with the intentional slaughter of women and children speaks more of a pathology on your part than it does on the part of the "war-mongers". Yeah, but not half as much as the European proto-Union dithering for years while the Muslims of Bosnia were decimated. You'll note, with no small degree of irony, that the problem in that case was the lack of American war-mongering. You're arguing with yourself. First you say that Bush should have taken the fight to the terrorists. But he shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan and Iraq - instead he should have gone to Afghanistan, Iraq and 58 other countries. Except he shouldn't have taken the "fight" to those places, but instead he should have gathered intelligence on terrorists. Not to be used to go in and stop them, mind you, but simply... Say, why would you want to gather intelligence if you don't intend to use it? Intelligence to root out and arrest actual terrorists, not make thousands of innocent people (including Coalition soldiers) pay for the crimes of a handful of people. When I say take the fight, I don't mean start a war with 60 countries. I mean to take action through sanctions, arrests, and heaven forbid perhaps listening to the reasons why they have taken such desperate measures to get their message out. Violence through Terrorism, or violence through War is still violence against humanity. Victims are just as dead whether they died at the hands of terrorists or soldiers. The assailants have a firm belief that what they are doing is just The bottom line is that without expensive wars the bottom lines of corporations cashing in on military contracts is compromised. I doubt they have trouble sleeping at night when they can dream about their next Mercedes. Someone else suggested that since people also profited from rebuilding after a hurricane than perhaps hurricanes should be banned. Now that would really be Utopia. However, hurricanes are natural distasters and what are commonly referred to as 'Acts of Gods', so unpreventable. Wars are unnatural disasters, and acts of madmen and profiteers, commonly referred to as 'The work of the devil', and completely preventable. There is rarely honour in killing and no matter how much flowery rhetoric we use to justify war, there is simply no justification. 'Thou Shalt no Kill', means 'Thou Shalt not Kill'! And I believe that Hill & Knowlton mouthpiece O'Connor, is still just that. A Hill & Knowlton mouthpiece, concerned more with profits and pandering to the Republicans; than acting on the wishes of the Canadian, or even the American people.

They are not guilty but this is one reason, the main reason being that parents should have childcare choice, why I distrust govt sticking their noses - financially - deeper and deeper into Canadian society. There has been a few Saskatchewan govt employees charged in the last few months for stealing from taxpayers (the lady from Social Services comes to mind--I think it was a million dollars). When someone is given gobs of "free" money, the temptation is always there to "nick" some for yourself. Jack Layton and Paul Martin: There's your "non-profit" daycare! Bloody greedy leeching leftwing elitists and your govt monopolies always stealing our money. :angry: I liked what Columnist to the World (Mark Steyn) wrote today: I really miss Ronald Reagan. And Europe needs a Winston Churchill or an Iron Lady like Margaret Thatcher--no offense to Tony Blair whose foreign policy I admire. However I do not admire his gun ban (which resulted in a massive increase in crime), and I am disappointed that he did not learn from this, and now has implemented a "knife amnesty." Tony Tony Tony. Do you really think that the bad guys are going to turn in their knives? Just because one non-profit daycare misused funds, doesn't mean that all Daycares do the same or that a National Daycare Plan is wrong. I know that the CPC is in favour of more privatization. When John Baird was Miniser of Community and Social Services he contracted clerical work to Anderson Consulting (of Enron fame). Anderson charged 173 million to save 87.5 million (dropping clients from the system). They then charged an additional 500 million for a non-functioning computer and staffing. When the auditor general examined the books she found that Baird had paid four times the fee to Anderson for the work of one civil servant. The province is still cleaning up the mess. Does this mean that all privatization of government agencies is wrong, based on one politicians bungling of his job? Personally, I do, but would it be fair of me to automatically tell the CPC that they can't privatize government departments because it will always cost four times as much to do so?

"Successful" by what standards? On the face of it, Iraq did not pose a challenge militarily, so the quick victory over the regime was no surprise whatsoever. The subsequent occupation, on the other hand, is a different story. It's many failures can be laid at the doorstep of the small cabal of "thinkers" who made promises of flowers and unicorn farts and who's deliveray was equaly insubstansial. (BTW I have to quiestion the origin of your assertion that the RMC "deliberately ignores" deserving Americans.) Numbers lie. You can't measure a military's fighting qualities based soley on the number of people it has in uniform (and in Iraq's case, even the uniform part was abit of a stretch). Iraq's military was comparable to that of Nazi Germany's in spring of 1945: no navy, no air force, and the bulk of it's forces were poorly armed, poorly trained and poorly led: a shadow of its former self. It posed to challenge and no threat. A91 Even if one accepts your extremely dubious premise, how exactly does overthrowing one of the most secular regimes in the region advance the cause of fighting Islamonzombiehooliganism? Gee, could it be that pretty much every war in history has been prosecuted for "nefarious reasons" while cloaked in high-minded rhetoric? I do in fact support same sex marriage, freedom of speech, freedom to practice religous beliefs and all that 'leftie crapola' it would seem. But no matter how you spin it, the War in Iraq is wrong. Killing innocent civilians, including many women and children is wrong. The War did not make America safe or even safer from Terrorists. In fact, it only fueled the anger of much of the Arab world and GW has become the poster boy for Terrorist recruitment. If the Bush administration had acted responsibly, they would have taken the fight to the Terrorists and not to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorists have no borders. They have cells in at least 60 countries, including the US and Canada. The War on Terror should have been an Intelligence operation and not a lack of intelligence invasion.

Thank you. At one time in Ontario sterilization was automatic. Now it is rarely done, without uncoerced permission from the person to be sterilized. Ironically, my daughter is unable to make a decision of that magnitude without some gentle persuasion. I believe it is in her best interest (as does her GP) because she is much happier now that she is free from any responisibilty with regards to her child. Initially, our role was to be supervisors, because the powers that be thought she could do this. Only her own family knew otherwise, but our hands were tied. Now that the Children's Aid, fearing for our grandson's safety, will not allow her to get closer than ten feet, it has become a nightmare. I love my daughter. We speak on the phone at least twice a day and she rarely asks about her son. She visits me while he is in nursery school or when I'm not alone so that I have physical support should she become unmanagable. (I have MS myself so don't have the physical strength to control her) Because she is on ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program), we have been given what they call an Emergency Foster Care Supplement of $220.00 per month in addition to another $200.00 per month respite for me. We would still look after him without any financial support, but am not sure how many more, if any, we can raise. My daughter is 28 so has at least 10 more years of prospective childbearing. In 10 years my husband will be 72! Again, if we are to be responsible emotionally, morally and financially for her children, why can we not insist that she have her tubes tied? Sure, we could just turn our backs and allow them to go into foster care (non-family member foster parents get $ 49.00 per day), but they are still my grandchildren!! I just couldn't do it. I'm so sorry to hear about your plight. If she has an IQ that of a 12 year old....then shouldn't she be considered a minor, and therefore you, as the guardian make decisions for her? Could you take this to court? That's the irony of it. They do consider me to be her legal guardian, which basically means that I'm responsible for her actions, but my rights are limited. How can I take her to court? I mean morally, not legally. It puts the entire responsiblity on my shoulders and I already feel guilty just thinking about it. If there were avenues where the reponsibilty was shared, and perhaps a panel to decide what's best for her and any unborn children, we would all rest a little easier. I guess I'm just venting because the latest meeting was so frustrating.

Oh my goodness. They've got to be kidding. When he committed the offense surely he must have realized that if caught he would be going to prison. I'm only 4'10", but would never expect or demand such consideration. I guess if you're tall enough to do the crime, you're tall enough do the time. What next?

To address your question. It would seem based upon the specifics of your situation that you are making a reasonable request of your daughter by asking for her to be sterilized. It is however a request and she has no obligation to comply. If she does not you should consider her reasons why. Perhaps if she doesn't agree to sterilization, a compromize solution such as Depo Provera is called for. She was on the pill and is currently on Depo Provera, but often misses her appointments and goes months without protection. I've given her cabfare only to have the nurse call to say that she didn't show up, opting to go downtown instead. There is only a small window of opportunity to get the needle. Again, we can't force her to take birth control anymore than we can force her to get her tubes tied. (and she reminds me of this all the time) I agree with you that sterilization should not be forced and every case is different. However, when the person is incapable of making such important decisions, there should at least be a hearing. Our family doctor believes that it would be in her own best interest, because she really does not want the reposibility of children, but his hands are also tied. She's often told her son she hated him and that she would never find a boyfreind because of him, etc. etc. In some ways it's fortunate that he's deaf, but there's no mistaking the pure hatred on her face. It's very sad. So I guess my question is whether or not those involved with my daughter's wellbeing (she has a team as well as family support), should at least try to encourage her to consider sterilization as an option. They give her the option of a test for the mutant gene, but only after the fact, then present us with a much more difficult decision of whether or not to abort the fetus. There's got to be some middle ground.

There you go again, nocrap. Blaming Bush for this death is akin to blaming Churchill for the deaths of Canadian soldiers in WWII because he ordered them into battle.The US government did not start this fight but I'll quickly add that who started it is not the issue either. Nocrap, I think you would agree that slavery is an uncivilized scourge that has largely been eradicated, often by the use of force. We are fighting a similar fight now. Western liberal values are worth defending and it is not our fault if we have to use force to defend them. I am all in favour of attempting to understand the other person's point of view but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate rank medieval behaviour if it poses a threat. Actually I ascribe to the Benjamin Franklin philosophy that "there is no such thing as a good war". However, we could argue about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan and my view will always be that they are wrong, unwinnable and inexcusable. I support our troops but not their involvement in a civil war, where we must take sides. This has absolutely nothing to do with defending Western values. War is big business and big business is cashing in. However, my question with regards to American relations is whether the Canadian public should support the majority of Americans who oppose the war, or the minority who seem to feed off it. And in that vain whether O'Connor should have nixed an honourary diploma simply because the intended recipient spoke for the majority of Americans.

Thank you. At one time in Ontario sterilization was automatic. Now it is rarely done, without uncoerced permission from the person to be sterilized. Ironically, my daughter is unable to make a decision of that magnitude without some gentle persuasion. I believe it is in her best interest (as does her GP) because she is much happier now that she is free from any responisibilty with regards to her child. Initially, our role was to be supervisors, because the powers that be thought she could do this. Only her own family knew otherwise, but our hands were tied. Now that the Children's Aid, fearing for our grandson's safety, will not allow her to get closer than ten feet, it has become a nightmare. I love my daughter. We speak on the phone at least twice a day and she rarely asks about her son. She visits me while he is in nursery school or when I'm not alone so that I have physical support should she become unmanagable. (I have MS myself so don't have the physical strength to control her) Because she is on ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program), we have been given what they call an Emergency Foster Care Supplement of $220.00 per month in addition to another $200.00 per month respite for me. We would still look after him without any financial support, but am not sure how many more, if any, we can raise. My daughter is 28 so has at least 10 more years of prospective childbearing. In 10 years my husband will be 72! Again, if we are to be responsible emotionally, morally and financially for her children, why can we not insist that she have her tubes tied? Sure, we could just turn our backs and allow them to go into foster care (non-family member foster parents get $ 49.00 per day), but they are still my grandchildren!! I just couldn't do it.

I know that my politics are left of centre and I am a strong supporter of human rights; including the right to choose; but I find myself in a moral dilema when it comes to my own daughter. We adopted her when she was about 20 months old. Her parents were 'street people' in Toronto; both alcoholics. Therefore, when she showed developmental delays her diagnosis was fetal alcohol syndrome. However, when my grandson was born with extensive medical problems, tests were done which revealed that my daughter also has a rare genetic disorder. The mother carries the gene while the male offspring suffers most of the health problems. We visted the geneticist on Friday and they made it very clear to her that if she becomes pregnant again, they can run a test beforehand to determine if the unborn child has the mutant gene (50-50 chance) and then she alone can decide what to do. This is the background. My problem: My daughter has been assessed with low IQ. Cognitavely she functions at a 12 year old level; socially just 7. How can she make such an important decision? Ultimately it will come back on me. That being said, how can I choose to have a grandchild aborted? He or she will be a sibling of my grandson, and regardless of the outcome of the test, we would probably allow the baby to come full term and then again end up raising them. Why do they not at least present the option of having her tubes tied? I've tried but her social worker only convinces her otherwise. Clearly, she will never be able to raise a child on her own. In fact, because we can no longer handle her outbursts, she does not even live with us. We have full custody and she is only given supervised visitation, but must maintain a ten foot distance. And my situation is not unique. My daughter is in the Special Olympics and one of her team mates has had three children. The grandmother is raising all three. Another mother has two of her daughter's FIVE children! The other three are in foster care. It creates situations that could be avoided. My question is that if a person is deemed before hand that they can never be parents, should actions be taken to ensure that they never are? Help!

And Harper is now forced into the final refrain of all politicians caught on a sticky wicket, "That's been my position all along". He's no pillar of righteousness, but he's still squeaky clean compared to the Liberals' last 13 years in office. Oh my Gawd. 13 Years??? AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PAST LIBERAL CONDUCT. Harper is not leader of the opposition now, he is supposedly the leader of our country. He made a bad decision. He must admit that he made a decision and not lie to cover it up. Families are not being asked before hand anything other than to show support for 'the mission'. Canadians do not wish to view the caskets for 'excitement', but an opportunity to show respect. If we speak out agasinst the war we are accused of turning our backs on Canadian soldiers, but if we want to mark the solemn occasion of their deaths by saying goodbye with a tear and a salute, we are thrill seekers. Why even drape the coffin in a flag at all, if not to draw attention to the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Whether we support the mission or not, the person inside that coffin died for their country. It is not a time for politics.

I don't believe that RMC chose Anthony Zinni because of political bias. I believe they chose him because of his strong military background, his ability to speak and actually justify war and past leadership in conflicts like Vietnam. General Zinni is not totally opposed to the war though he was asked to speak to Congress before the attack on Iraq and gave solid reasons why his country should not depend on the weak intelligence concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction. He wanted to fight Terrorism at it's base where there are cells in 60 different countries, rather than focus all of their attention and resourses on one small group at the expense of so many innocent civilians. He felt that Sadam was already taken care of and did not need to be removed. He actually supports George Bush but fears that his administration has been hi-jacked by neo-conservatives and think tanks. He also opposes Rumsfeld's handling of the operation, as the majority of Americans do. I live near RMC so am well aware of local opinion. Many here are calling for Harper's 'head on a platter' (words I actually heard at our local market from a group of vendors over his mishandling of Nichola Goddard's return home). She was a graduate of RMC and recent convocation ceremonies honoured her life and mourned her untimely death. At such an emotional ceremony, those attending also had to scratch an esteem military leader, who was to receive an honourary degree, from the program because he dared to speak out against an administration that ultimately caused her death. This was not the time or the place to push his political agenda. O'Connor only drew attention to the fact that his administration supports GW and makes us more determined to remove our soldiers from the conflict. If he had not gotten involved, most here would never even know who General Zinni was or what his views were.

So I guess they are finally admitting that it is an Occupation and not a Liberation. Naturally, my support goes to the soldiers who are there and see first hand the carnage and chaos. To prepare for battle the American troops go through extensive, let's call it 'brainwashing', for lack of a better word; where contempt and hatred for the determined 'enemy' drives them to do unspeakable acts. Their country tells them they are there to 'free' the Iraqi people, but when they realize that the Iraqi people are not interested in their brand of freedom, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. One interview with a young American soldier comes to mind. He was in Iraq as an 'Intelligence Officer'. He asked 'what do I know about military intelligence. Before I came here I worked at Kentucky Fried Chicken.' They are ill trained and unprepared, brandishing sophisticated weapons that give them far too much power, when nerves are frayed. Other coalition forces see this and are sickened. I just feel sad.

Actually military actions have become very political. Harper himself spoke out for the war in Iraq when he was leader of the opposition and then sent a letter to the Washington Post declaring that Canadians should be standing 'shoulder to shoulder on the battlefields' with the Americans. The NDP and Bloc opposed extending our involvement in Afghanistan and it went to a vote. During the last US presidential campaign, the War in Iraq was front and centre. Harper also made war political when he refused to fly the flag at halfmast for fallen soldiers and when he refused to allow the public to see flag draped coffins returning home, despite families' wish to allow Canadians to mourn their deaths and pay their final respects. Like it or not, WAR IS POLITICAL and the voting public has a lot to say about it. Perhaps 'hate' was too strong a word but Mr. Bush has definitely been in the hot seat lately, and his popularity is at an all time low; and mainly because of the War. I'm sure that Military Colleges hand out doctorates to military leaders from all countries who have made a positive difference on the world stage. Mr. Zinni's credentials, experience and leadership are beyond reproach. The fact that he has offered a credible voice for the majority of Americans who oppose the war, will earn him an honoured place in history. And let's face it; history will not be kind to either this administration or the unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. O'Connor's actions were purely political and simply reinforced his government's love affair with everything Republican. He should not have gotten involved.