gc1765

The British helped out the U.S. in Iraq, what did the British get in return? Nothing. Excuse me. We bailed their sweet arses out in, oh, WW I and II. That was a long time ago. I guess I should have asked: what has bush done for the British? Nothing. By the way, you guys showed up a bit late in both cases. Canada was there for the long haul

Canada needs to do what is best for Canada, period. No appeasing the U.S. in the hopes that they will return the favour, they won't. We helped them in Afghanistan, what did we get in return? More tariffs on softwood lumber. The British helped out the U.S. in Iraq, what did the British get in return? Nothing. NAFTA benefits both Canada and the U.S., so I wouldn't suggest getting rid of it, but we should try to ensure that we are getting a fair deal.

I have been watching CBC and they have reported the death toll on both sides, last I checked I think it was 2 dozen or so Israelis and 300 or so Lebanese. I have not seen anything more in-depth about the victims than that, so how is it imbalanced? Actually, 2 kidnapped israelis = 300 death, +1000 wounded and countless deportations. Looks like lebaneses stocks are pretty low at wallstreet vs the israelis stocks... Last time I checked, hezbollah was still launching rockets, so how can you only count the 2 israeli soldiers (not to mentioned the 8 that were killed) and not the dozens that have died since? If we're talking about total deaths, then I believe my numbers are more or less accurate. If we are talking only about the initial deaths/kidnappings in this conflict as you have done, then it's actually 10 israelis to 0 lebanese.

Are we talking about avoiding the question? Chretien was hands down the best at it. Have you ever heard the "a proof is a proof..." quote? Classic!!

I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. If it requires sperm (ie another source of genetic material) to make the embryos used to generate sperm then how do the children end up with only the genes of the mothers? Since it takes at least 1 sperm to make sperm, that genetic material will be in the children won't it? And even if it is possible, since women only have X chromosomes (no Y chromosome) all the children will be female which would lead to....the end of the male gender. Yikes. Also, I agree with geoffrey, it helps for young males to have a father as a role model in their lives. Then again, how important is it for young females to have a male role model, afterall if we assume for a minute that this technique will be the only method of reproduction, then the world will be entirely female.

I have been watching CBC and they have reported the death toll on both sides, last I checked I think it was 2 dozen or so Israelis and 300 or so Lebanese. I have not seen anything more in-depth about the victims than that, so how is it imbalanced?

I agree with you for the most part: #1 I agree #2 Certainly possible but not definate #3 I disagree. Unemployment is fairly low now and I don't see why it should increase #4 I agree #5 I agree. It's already happening in big cities, just look at Vancouver!! #6 Formed yes, but I doubt they will have won a seat The last two I also disagree with.

Care to back that up with some facts? Or were you being sarcastic? Sometimes it's hard to tell

Canada is one of the biggest arms dealers? Wow, that's news to me. Can you back that up with some statistics?

Link These embryos are not being used and will probably be discarded, why not use them to potentially save lives? Besides, abortion is legal in the U.S., so why get upset over a blastocyst that could be used to save lives? LINK The research is relatively new, it takes time to make progress. Especially when funding and stem cell lines are limited and contaminated. Depends on your definition of life. Personally an embryo a few days old is not "life" to me, but that is a whole different debate that I wont get into right now. If these embryos are just being discarded then that is killing them as well, so what harm does it do to use them for research? And at this point it would appear that the "possibility" of a cure is pretty high. The government pays for a lot of medical research, in the U.S. though NIH: Link and in Canada through CIHR. If these agencies fund other types of medical research, then why not embryonic stem cell research? I'm not really sure how much profit there is to be made in stem cell research, but it is possible that it's not as profitable as other therapeutics, which means it would get less attention from biotech companies. I'm not sure if that's the case, but it's possible. That is part of the reason why the government funds medical research, to fill in the gaps that are not as profitable.

It's Bush's right to veto a bill. I just don't know how it will help Republicans when they say I supported the bill but my leader vetoed it. I understand it's his right to veto the bill, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Stem cell research could potentially save/improve many lives. I'm not an expert on american politics, but I don't think bush is the "leader" of all republicans like it is here in Canada. It is much more common to vote against party lines in the U.S. than Canada. Personally, if a Republican senator voted for the bill and the president vetoed it, I would not hold that against the senator who voted for it as it is not their fault. That is just my opinion, perhaps some americans will see things differently.

I don't know how it will affect the election, many republicans supported the bill. If americans are smart they won't vote for those who voted against the bill. I can't believe bush is going to veto it, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Bush is not forcing anyone to be Christian, and he is certainly not killing millions of people for not being Christian. I prefer to think of Bush as an idiot rather than a maniac like hitler was. Maybe these maps will help: Link Link and Link Bush invaded afghanistan because they harbored bin laden who attacked the U.S. Perhaps bush could have handled it better by negotiating more with the taliban to get bin laden, but hindsight is 20/20. That war was justified. I disagree with the war in iraq, but at least bush thought they were a threat. What threat did germany's neighbors pose? All hitler cared about was taking over the world. Bush is at least trying to make the world more secure, even if he has gone wrong about how to do so. As for Iran et al., we will have to wait and see what happens. Bush probably doesn't have enough time left in his presidency to invade them all. Ok so bush has screwed us over economically, at least he's not gasing us. Do you really think the U.S. will invade Canada? How will they justify that one?

What?? I don't like Bush...but to say he is worse than hitler!? I didn't realize that bush has killed millions of innocent people, so perhaps you could back up your claim with some facts?

One could just as easily say that Ralph Nader helped George Bush to win the 2000 election (and possibly 2004 but I'm not sure on that). That does not mean that George Bush is a cheater, nor does it mean that Clinton cheated in 1992. In response to John McCain, if I were american I would usually vote democrat. However, John McCain is probably the only republican I can think of who I respect and would consider voting for. So I agree that he is not a typical republican.

Maybe this will help: Link Link It would appear that Native leaders were in favour of education, but not assimilation. I'm not sure why it matters though. What is worse, implementing these policies or not objecting to them? The government had the power to end residential schools, Native leaders did not. If they voiced their objections, do you think they would have been heard? What about non-Natives who objected but went unheard (for example Dr. Peter Bryce)? It was the law at the time to attend residential schools, and those who objected would be removed forcibly. Should they have resisted, using violence if necessary? Wouldn't that create a situation like in Caledonia?

I meant why was it so long after they were hit that they collapsed, which took about 1-2 hours. If the building was imploded with explosives, wouldn't it have collapsed immediately? Link

If terrorists brought the buildings down using bombs, then why fly the jets into the buildings? Also, why did it take so long for the buildings to collapse?

Natives get free health care, and some Natives get free education. They do not receive money simply for being Native and they DO pay taxes (off reserve). Please give me examples where Native people were hired over more qualified "white" people.

What makes you think that Native leaders co-operated with the idea of residential schools? It was federal law for all Native children to enter residential schools. They had no choice. What were Natives supposed to do?

There is no reason that one can not be economically successful while retaining their native language, religion and traditions. There are many successful immigrants in Canada who still speak their native language. In fact, many of the settlers learned to speak the langauge of the Natives to help them during the fur trade, but that doesn't mean they stopped speaking english. There is just as much financial incentive for the government to deny that these things happened. So why believe one side of the story and not the other, when each side has equal financial motivation to exaggerate or deny what happened? Also, I don't think there is any financial incentive for those who witnessed a murder.

If Natives chose to learn these skills in order to improve their lives that would have been much better, however Natives were forced into these schools. Natives did not only learn important skills, they were also forced to lose their language and religion, and replace it with christianity. This was the policy of the schools at the time. Please explain to me how forbidding Natives to speak their native language, and practice their own religion (and punishing them if they did) helps Natives, or was well-intentioned. I must reiterate my previous point, if Natives wanted to benefit from the technology that the settlers brought and wanted to benefit from the European-type economy, fine. But why not let Natives decide that for themselves? You mentioned that not a Native alive wants to go back to that existance...that may be true, but if a Native did want to go back to that existence should we prevent them from doing so? I edited my post to read died/went missing. You are correct that many died from TB, but many did go missing and many others were deliberately murdered. Some people even think that Natives were purposely exposed to TB, but I don't think there's any way to prove that, so don't let that take away from my other points. Link Link The death rate was higher from TB in residential schools compared to other Native communities, because they were more crowded and obviously a large number of people in a crowded space will lead to infectious diseases. The death rate was also apparently higher due to lack of ventilation. These things were known at the time. Common sense would seem to suggest that if the government noticed extremely high death rates (40%) from TB, largely due to over-crowding, that they would end residential schools and allow Natives to go back to their communities where the death rate was lower. Link Many of them probably were trying to help, but those in the church who committed murder and rape were not motivated by helping the Natives. And there were many in the church who did that.

Natives were economically and socially disadvantaged compared to non-natives at the time. Assimilation was seen as a way to correct this inequality. Assimilation may sound bad in our post-Trudeau society where multiculturalism is an artical of faith, however, at the time assimilation was considered to a good thing that would help the natives. You seem to agree that the purpose of residential schools was assimilation. However, assimilation was meant to benefit the Canadian settlers by making Natives 'productive' members of society. I don't believe that their intentions were to help the Natives. Natives have survived in Canada for thousands of years, and appeared to be doing fine, so why try to change thier lifestyle? The Germans did not send to the Jews to the concentration camps to make them better Germans. They sent them there to kill them. There is no comparison to what happened in the residential schools and the holocaust. Pretending that there is a comparison simply invites people to dismiss your arguments. I'm not trying to make a direct comparison between the holocaust and residential schools, which is why I used "holocaust" in quotations. The germans purposely killed millions of jews, Canadians sent Natives to residential schools to try to assimilate them and in the process 50,000 died/went missing (edit), many were raped and countless others witnessed these murders/rapes. One is worse than the other, but that does NOT make either of them right. All I'm trying to say is why do we learn about one in school and not the other, especially when it occured in Canada? Once again, I don't believe that residential schools were well intentioned at all.

Boarding schools are very different from residential schools. First of all, boarding schools were not specifically deisgned to assimilate a culture, residential schools were. The only purpose of residential schools was to try to assimilate Natives into the "European" society, not to help them in any other way. Secondly, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that any of the British upper class were forced into boarding schools as Natives were forced into residential schools. Yes but rape and murder were definately not acceptable discipline for the time. I'm not arguing for race-based rights because of residential schools. I believe that Natives deserve the rights laid out in treaties, but that is a different argument. Personally, I don't mind helping anyone, regardless of race, living in the conditions that many Natives live in. All I hope for is that Canadians recognize that many of the problems in Native communities are directly related to these residential schools. Maybe then we can find a solution to the problems that exist in Native communities. I learned about the holocaust in high school, yet it wasn't until University that I learned Canada had it's own "holocaust". As I've mentioned before, abuse is a cycle. The impact of residential schools on Natives will also be around for a long time, and will not be forgotten so easily.

That certainly makes a lot more sense than my interpretation. However, as you have pointed out before, two wrongs don't make a right. Besides, this is one case. This is not the government taking away every Native child.