myata

Agreed, in general. Canadian companies should not be unfairly taxed versus foreign competition. That's just one of the reasons why an international solution is needed. Which seem to be escaping Harper so far. One way could be through good old import / export duties / subsidies, but it could quickly become too messy. A better one (which would require some sort of international accord) is when a buyer (importer) pays environmental surcharge to offset the carbon tax born by the producer. Sort of like carbon VAT.

Well we have to honest with ourselves at least at some point. The whole point of the exercise was to make both industry and consumers aware of the cost of managing GHG. The cost which until now was born by the society as a whole. Businesses that operate below cost would have to go down, as per the basics of economy. Those that adjust their cost structure, will survive and become stronger. Sure, there can (and will be) bridge programs, grants and so on to ease the pain of the transition. But it can't happen without assigning real money cost to the emissions - of course, if we want to have real reductions anytime soon. Not in 2050 and on paper. Of course, much better solution would be to talk them emissions into reductions without having to do anything. Or maybe get everybody else to reduce their stuff twice as much so that we could go on pumping gold, carefree?

And if we're entering the domain of speculation "what would have happened if ...", who said that there had to be a full blown invasion of Japanese mainland? The country was going down cut off supplies and resources. A full naval blockade with targeted bombing of selected military objects, together with Soviet's advance in the north would probably have led to the same result (i.e. surrender), albeit maybe somewhat later and on different terms. Are we trying to jack up the numbers to justify already known result? Or maybe, defeating Japan wasn't the only factor? Or perhaps (as you rightfully mentioned) not such an important factor as proving one's might to the whole world? At the expense of 200,000 lives.

Think of it another way - it was absolutely possible for the US to prevent Isreal from going nuclear. Just to cut all aid, fair and square, if they wouldn't listen. With promise of NATO's guarantee of security as a carrot if necessary. Now that Israel has gotten the guns, there isn't one chance in the hell that Arabs will give up trying to get it. The question is only when, how, and what happens afterwards.

No, really. Everybody should just sit on their collective ar..es pointing fingers at everybody else. That's the way to go. Real and made at home solution to all problems including separation.

How much of that production is going to export? US and China are two biggest economies. If domestic consumption drops, guys in the oil patch would turn around on a dime. Remember, it's the real reductions we're talking about. Those just won't happen if the biggest GHG producers are left completely off the hook, while everybody else is chipping in their dimes and pennies. And most certainly, there should be a consumption tax as well, it isn't like one or the other.

Yes it does seem to be the easiest to implement and therefore most practical solution, if we're talking about real reductions of emissions here and now. But Harpers government rejected it out of hand. Instead they are talking about "caps" as the alternative (their own and "made in Canada"). Which, under the assumption (real reductions here and now) does not make much sense. E.g., Hard caps: how are they going to be enforced? Would violators have to face real financial responsibility to observe the caps? will caps be universal? what would be the registry system (and how much it would cost)? If the caps are enforced on the same level as other environmental laws (like pollution), ie. on best effort / educational basis, we won't see any real reductions for a long time to come. Soft or production based caps (and there's no way of telling how many of Harpers' "caps" would end up in this category): they're fine except they do nothing to achieve the goal (ie. reduction of emissions). Those can continue to grow although at a slower rate. So I just don't see how the "caps" system could work. Not to say that it'd require another layer of bureaucracy to supervise and manage, that seem to be totaly contrary to the Cons idea of accountable government. But these days, you just can't pin the guys in one spot - they're all over the map (or shall we say, spectrum)?

Maybe, but what would it prove? What the world should go locked in the "eye for an eye" dance intil one day it would accidentally blow up? The bottom line is, it was not a question of survival for the US, not even extremely high cost (with a right strategy), and they still used the deadliest weapon in human history against mostly civilian population. No matter how you turn it, it doesn't look pretty. And finally, you know, that father and brother argument, it can be used by anybody, to justify virtually anything.

The count still falls way short of 200,000 dead in the bombings of two cities (mostly civilian), does it? And it can be argued whether the US casualties could have been less if the campaign was conducted differently. But it's beyond the point. Being moral, there's a line that will never be crossed - no matter cost or risk. Using N-bombs in this war far off US mainland (as the later examples of Vietnam and Iraq) just shows that morality has little to do with their war strategy - efficiency and expediency, on the other hand, has a lot. And I'm not saying that they're the bad guys. No, they're OK as long as one doesn't step on their toes (or has something they really want). It's just that their actions in all these years put them way short of that shining image of eternal truth and liberty they're trying so hard (genuinly or as part of the plan) to project.

No question they would. Being in existence much longer than any of the states in the West, they should be able to sort out their problems without foreign interference. Especially of the kind that puts despotic (but friendly to the West) regimes on their necks.

Actually, the system is quite complex and includes certain balances (Wikipedia). But does it matter if you already know what majority wants?

Didn"t the whole thing start with Pearl Harbour and a few other atolls in the middle of nowhere? US casualties were around 2000 mostly military (Wikipedia ) - just to put things into perspective. Anyways, I"m OK with that, as long as the "moral" card stays out of play, on both sides. Other than propaganda tool which I take it to be.

Sure, they themselves would have asked to be relieved of their suffering by a benevolent liberator. Sounds familiar (and didn't even seem to change much in all the years that's passed). If they (dead people) could only be asked, that is - or shall we trust your word on that account?

So, it'd be fine (and you wouldn't object to it at all) for a foreign power (or organization) to consipire and execute a violent coup d'etat in the US, to install a puppet regime as long as it'd be "in keeping with its neighbours" (like e.g. Mexico, Guatemala, Haiti)? Or only one player in the world is entitled to the role?

You mean, the conflict of generations, right, that "sons and farthers" thing? In the same way as Charter of Rights and universal health care is imposed on us by the Canadians of the 60s?

You're saying basically that there's no such thing as "morality" consideration in war. It was clear that Japan is going on the way down and the question was only how and when. On the other side of the scale were tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocents who would have perished. All came down to cost - benefit analysis as it seems. So, does it mean that we shouldn't second guess anything that's done in a war? Including "war on terror"? US used nukes even when it was a simply matter of cost, not survival. Then there're people robbed of their land growing up and living their whole life in the closest place to hell on this Earth. Should we second guess their deeds when they get frustrated with their condition? Now, to Riverwind, are you sure there were'nt a less populated island, or at least an empty field where these weapons could be demonstrated in their full destructive might without causing that much death? Did it have to be two populated cities with little military value?

Perhaps you can clarify, who exactly it was imposed by? The last government that was imposed on Iran was that of Shah, "imposed" by CIA sponsored coup in 1953. His reing was famous for brutality of his secret service, Savak, set up under guideance of CIA, and total submission to the US interests - until he was finally deposed in a popular uprising in the end of 70s. Doesn't it look like a familiar story that played itself again and again - so that even a specific term, "blowback", was invented to signify these repeating episodes when US is haunted by the effects of its foreing policies?

My, what a tour de force of intellect! Can any logic and/or reasoning match with that?

Iran also has conventional weapons including medium range missiles. Bombing it in this highly charged climate could trigger an all-out war. And I thought we were talking about solutions? Iran has strong reasons to want the nukes. Isreal, supported by the worlds greatest military power has them, and Iraq next door clearly shows what happens to those who can't adequately defend themselves. It is also capable (technically and economically) to achieve them. The only question is, what our relations with them will be like when they get there.

I really want to see some party or politician (Liberal, ND or Green, I don't really care) to pull together guts and officially call off Canada's participation in this whole "war on terror" affair. Using the term inventented in the HQ of the mental giant of our times GWB is 1) meaningless; 2) explains nothing 3) helps with nothing and 4) may get everybody who isn't careful about getting too involved into greater trouble which they would later regret. That does not mean in any way that we should not participate in a meaningful effort to stabilize international peace, our internal security or collective security with our allies - including Afganistan. It's just that it'll be done as, when, and as long as necessary, is reasonable and makes sense (economical and political). Using warlike terminology is useless (as was already pointer out multiple times, no one really knows what would be a meaning of victory in such a "war" - unless of course we'll take GWB on his word) and dangerous as these words may start living life of their own and become a self-fulfilling profecy.

That would definitely have more appeal than the flag. But compromise being in the blood of this country, how about "St Valentine"s day of the national flag heritage"?

And that was certainly wrong and he's probably got a warning for that (note that no one is obliged to love cops - it's just that using offensive terms especially against a whole group of people is against the rules this board). However, how does that affect this particular thread? I understand if you have problems with the credibility story (btw I didn't notice any references to the source), but how does bringing in personality of the poster relate to the subject?

Sorry but I did"t quite get it either. Can you explain how a report of this very serious incident (presuming that the story is true) amounts to "smearing campaing"? And then, how does your comment relate to the subject of the thread (rather than smearing the poster)?

Canadian Blue, on this note, can you please point exactly where the word "pigs" was used in the post? Or perhaps, you yourself should be reported for "misrepresentation"? Not to mention making rules on the forum. P.S. If no one has already done so, please consider reporting yourself.

I think this forum would lose much of its appeal if one won"t be able to call an idiot his (or her) proper name. The question is, as was rightfully pointed out by another poster, is whether using the term is reasonable in the context of the discussion, or gratuitous (i.e. has no relevance or reason other than to offend). Now we can argue (or even vote) whether the person in question does, in fact, qualify as a moron. However, it would be beyond the point. The real question is whether applying the term in the context of this thread can be considered as reasonable (ie. having a point, even if, ultimately, being incorrect), or gratuitous. My own take would be that given the extent of this country"s involvment in Afganistan, and the casualties suffered, the act in question does have certain attributes of being moronic - on the level of international policy, that is. The final word rests with the moderator, of course.