Jerry J. Fortin

I hope this vote will be a matter of confidence.

Where do I begin with this...... Lets take this from the begining of your statement. It is true that the Americans originally thought that terrorists enter their country through Canada. They were at least partially right, do you recall the ding bat that threatened to blow up something in Seattle? So SOME terrorists have come across the border from Canada. He was caught thank God, and a tragic event avoided. We have thousands of miles of border with the USA and it is very easy to cross it in many places. Why would the Americans attack us? Are you suggesting that we go and kidnap a couple of Americans and Thats right Lebanese forces have not been engaged in battle with Israel, because Israel has no bone to pick with them. I am sure that if they did have a problem with the Lebanese Army it would have targeted them outright and early in this desperate situation. There is no way to attack a guerilla force entrenched within a civilian population without causing collateral damage. These cowards hide behind their own women and children to use them as shields to protect their sorry asses. Its not bad enough that they hide in residential areas, but they endanger their own families to do so. They willingly put their own citizens at risk instead of accepting responsibility for their own actions and fighting in an honourable fashion. With all due respect, their government does support Hezbollah according to their own President. Read this interview and tell me how they don't support terrorists. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/21/...houd/index.html What freaking planet are you on! Has our Prime Minister suddenly declared that he supports acts of terror against anyone? Yeah people die from political posturing every day here in Canada don't they. Just as there were "indications" of WMD's in Irag? Yeah I guess that makes France and Russia terrorist states in your opinion! I think that perhaps the point was to ensure the government of Lebanon was made aware that their citizens are conducting terrorist operations against Israel. Now tell me how you would accept members of your family being kidnaped and then have rockets fired at your home. What would you want your government to do about it?

The elected representatives of the people determine the outcome of legislation proposed in the House of Commons. This has already been decided upon, yet we now find ourselves returning to the same issue. In my view the government is wasting time and money on this issue. The government has no place in the bedrooms of citizens. The private sexual habits of citizens have no impact on society. It is nobody's business what goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults. For this reason a more valueable debate would be legalizing prostitution. As it stands the sex industry is conducted outside of government regulations and the proliferation of disease and criminal abuse of the workers is common place. Many young girls are trapped in a lifestyle not by choice but by circumstance. This situation has been in existance for years and the government has always left these citizens behind in terms of care and aid. In addition the prosecution for violent and underage sex offenses could be elevated into a capital crimes classification through the change of legal status of sex trade workers. If services can be legally purchased then there is even less excuse for sex without mutual consent of legal age adults. The SSM issue pales in comparison to this age old problem of society.

I discount the entire premise of these statements. Canada has always had problems of one sort or another. There is simply no reason to blame the USA for our problems. The differences between our two nations stem from minor disputes in business, in political terms there is very few problems between our nations. With all due respect our economic attachment to the USA is beneficial, and could be advantageous with a little tinkering. World opinion is becoming polarized. The economic giants actually get along fine with our southern friends, it is the third world countries for the most part that are causing problems.

While the tragic death of citizens everywhere on this earth is cause for much pain and suffering for those of us that remain, the situation in the middle east has the potential to escalate into a world war. The situation has begun to polarize political opinions. For now the Arab league condemns both sides in the conflict, but that will only last so long. If Israel becomes involved in wholesale invasion to acquire and maintain a buffer zone Arab League member states will speak against occupation and stand together against Israel. Argus I do not share your confidence in the ability to resolve this situation prior to or during any escalation of hostilities. If Iran becomes involved in a physical sense energy prices will be the least of the impacts to the rest of the world. If the Arabs engage and lose a military conflict, the problem with terrorism will increase in dramatic fashion. It is not the conventional forms of conflict that need to be addressed here. Terrorism cannot be defeated in a military sense. The only resolution is political, which is why I have my doubts that it will be possble to actually turn this thing off. Convince me that I am wrong...........

I know of none myself. But what is your point? That age matters? Is the life of one human more or less valuable than another? How many children have terrorists killed over the years? The questions for this line of reasoning are as endless as the conflict itself. Terrorists are cowards and criminals. Those that hide terrorists are aiding and abetting the criminal activities of terrorists. The pursuit of criminals is the responsibility of any civilized nation in the world. Given that Lebanon has provided cover and protection for these criminals in their midst, they themselves have acted in a criminal manner as well. Therefore it is the government of Lebanon who is at fault for this situation. The government of Lebanon is fully capable of reversing the current situation by prosecuting the terrorists for war crimes and endangering the rest of the Lebanese population through their criminal activites. They need to release the two soldiers being held and station Lebanese troops along the border and take responsibility for their citizens. I will suggest that if their government does not accept responsibility for these citizens that it forfeits the territorial rights of those citizens and an end of hostilities will result in the expansion of the Israeli borders by right of possession and security requirements. I would argue that this political option be utilized as a viable alternative dispute mechanism in international law, with respect to the pursuit of sloving the problem of terrorism.

The UN is home to the most convoluted of all bureaucracies. It has legislative powers but no means of enforcement. Just because the UN does not sanction something does not mean that it will or will not happen. In the true sense of the word it is a home for international diplomacy to reside within, nothing else. I believe that the Security Council is capable of approving or vacating any decisions made in the comittee of the whole.

Well Argus you seem to have hit a nerve. I must agree that the posting of pictures depicting death and destruction will yield an emotional respone. That is the entire basis of the current situation in the middle east isn't it, it is an emotional charged atmosphere. Logic does not enter into the equation at all. Logic would simply dictate that possesion is 9/10 of the law, and in that case the so-called occupied territories should be declared a spoil of war. As to the question of a Palestinian homeland, Gaza has been GIVEN to them by Israel.

Being there first is no excuse for harbouring terrorists. These Hezbollah people are terrorists, that is a known fact. These terrorists do not focus on military engagments they operate on the basis of targeting civilians. What should the punishment for that be? Now what should the punishment be for harbouring a terrorist?

Give me a break! What the US is saying is that there are indications of state sponsored terrorism here. That is an international no-no. The US has given billions to Israel that is true. Now name one single incident of an Israeli strapping on some C4 and strolling into a market place. There is a difference here in that respect, is there not? While there are many people claiming that the Jewish state is acting like a terroristic regime, there is little more than provacative rhetoric to substantiate this claim. In fact the claim is an insult all to itself to the citizens of Israel. If the nation of Islam wants war, it shall find itself up to its eyeballs in death and destruction. We are no longer talking about conventional battles of one sort or another we are witnessing the acts of cowards hiding behind women and children and blaming those who seek to bring these cowards to justice. This is an international situation that has already grown beyond the status of local, it is now in a regional transition which could escalate into a full scale world wide conflict. If your nations citizens were being attacked from outside their borders by an organized force, how would you want your government to respond? Was there any real choice for Israel? Iran has declared support for Hezbollah, and they are a major supplier of energy to China. They are hiding behind that little wild card. Beating up Iran is a strategic threat to the Chinese. There is great danger on this path that we should all consider.

She is mistaken in her logic in my view. I cannot see how Israel can be charged with indiscriminant targeting of non-combatants. Each case of attack was in reponse to the perception of probable cause based on the inteligence estimates. Utilizing her logic George Bush is a war criminal for his actions in Iraq. Whole I applaud her position on military aggression I reject her position of judgement. Her function in her present capacity as a commissioner of Human Rights is to ensure the preservation of ALL human rights to ALL citizens. This is not supposed to be a political position, it is supposed to be a apolitical position.

This poll does not surprise me. Living in right wing Alberta a vast majority of support here foes toward Israel. Then again Alberta is a very religious place, much the same as Quebec, but with a different viewpoint.

If Israel can dipose of the Hezbollah problem it will not escalate. If the Lebanese Army becomes involved and Israel is forced top conduct operations against the entire state, then I would tend to think Syria would become involved. This would draw Israel into a confrontation with Syria who would be drawing Iran into providing assitance and therefore draw the US into the one time regional conflict. It can get out of control rather quickly. Which begs the question of why the US doesn't yet see the need to interfere and prevent the escalation in the first place by reigning in Israel. Unless of course you leap to the conclusion that America occupation of both Iraq and Iran would constitute a beneficial political and economic position for US interests. Didn't the Iranians nationalize a large chuck of former US assets in its revolution?

Perhaps the use of oil is misleading. Energy is a far more accurate word for the entire discussion I think. The reason OIL is so imprtant to us is that we are using it as fuel for our transportation methods. If you want to conserve oil consumption all you need to do is go for the biggest bang for you buck and utilize a more effecient system of transport for goods and people. Efficient meaning cost effective. There is only one viable alternative is you go with that theory and that is to electrify the railroad network and increase its capacity and diversity. Go further and faster with the development of; wind, solar, tidal and even nuclear power production. Start thinking about another problem we will be confronted with in the near future and that is water consumption. The tree huggers need to take a back seat and we need to start talking about water in Canada. Sitting as we are on 7% of the worlds fresh water supply we have a hole card that can be used as a wild card to everybody's advantage. Water can irrigate as well as create power. Given that is drains into the worlds oceans we need to rethink this resource as it leaves our territory un-used and without public benefit by natural causes. There is a lot of available kilowats draining into the oceans that we simply haven't had the brains to tap into. The reason oil is an issue is because of its relative expense and current state of use. Alter its use and its development will change as well. It is a hydrocarbon that cannot be recycled from its liquid form when used as an energy source, but in a solid form it is nearly impervious to decay and can be recycled numerous times into virtually anything we want. Burning it up doesn't make much sense in the greater scheme of things now does it?

Canadians need to realize that we are partners in North America with the US of A. This isn't exactly our town we are talking about, we just a little country acreage out of town. We have less fancy services and less crime and such but its still a fair sized neighborhood that we all live in. We have more in common than we would each like to admit. Then there are more differences than we would like to admit to. All the same we are more akin to kissing cousins than anything else. What Canada needs to do is EARN the respect of the Americans. Until we do we will be the naive country hicks up north somewhere. To improve relations with America is the easiest political excercise on the planet, if you are a Canadian. Unfortunately our nanny state government can't see the trees for the forest and figure it out. In this day and age the single most important focus of the US government is security. Forget trade or culture and even political differences the sole focus of the US is border security and the protection of its citizens in the post 9/11 world. If Canada was serious about improving US relations it should offer a continental defense pact with military integration. Call it NORAD on roids if you want but this little gesture would have the Americans doing handstands in Congress. What the Americans NEED is a local partner with a vested interest in North American defense. What both nations NEED is to create an economic development strategy to compete in global markets. The way to do that is to utilize American manufacturing methods with Canadian raw materials and Mexican labour. The target of exported goods should not initially be Asian, but South America instead. The reason for this is the difference in consumer groups. Chinese consumers will buy domestic products to support their own economy as will the Indians. South America is relatively light in secondary industry but it has a growing population which translates into an increasing consumer market. Going south instead of east will provide a cushion and serve as a spring board to launch into Asia from a more dominate position attained through lower production costs. We need to rethink our economic concepts on order to survive, and America is as much an answer to Canada as we are to them. All that we have to do is believe in each other and we can make it happen. Should Canada fail to take advantage of the current situation that is rapidly developing in terms of security and economy we will be utterly destroyed and sink into political oblivion.

Just a little reminder here folks but manufacturing is the prime form of employment for the working middle class citizens. We are and will be unable to compete with the low cost labour from both India and China. We will lose hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs to Asia. Will this happen overnight, no. That is a far cry from saying it will not happen at all though isn't it? With respect to shipping raw materials out of the country, that leaves us where we are now. The hewers of wood and drawers of water. As long as we retain this colonial attitude we will never rise above our present station. While Canada has numerous resources that are and will be in demand outside of North America, the same can not be said for the USA. It is true that there is an abundance of resources available to the Americans, it is just that their consumption for internal use far outstrips ours. We are able to export our natural resources because of our smaller and less industrialy developed economy. Canada will fare far better in the changing world economy because of our natural resources and small population consumption requirments than the USA. Having said that, the US dollar will suffer. When that system of standards changes there will be severe reprecussions within the North American markets. In that regard we will be in the same boat as the Americans. In short, there are rough times ahead. My whole point was that our leadership needs to wake up and smell the coffee before its too late. If this nation waits too see what happens it will be too late to alter our direction and avoid what will become inevitable.

Within this decade the rise of the Asian economy will become apparent to any with the eyes to see and ears to hear. By 2007 the first cars manufactured in China will be available in North American markets. They will cost the consuming public less than half of what they are now paying for cars. The initial hit will manifest itself on the stock prices, followed by market share of production. The next effect will be a rationalization of the domestic industry. Ford will probably stop making cars, and GM will probably stop making trucks. The entire industry will contract by as much as half, hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs. As the stock prices begin to tumble on those companies involved in auto manufacturing, suppliers of raw materials to that industry will begin to feel the impact in reduced demand for production. This will slide another segment of the stock market into a spiral downward. At this point a great many mutual funds will begin to decline. An adjustment of as much as half of the current market value of stocks will plunge the economy into depression. With the markets in flux the pressure on the dollar will cause a rapid fall in currency markets. The US dollar will cease to be the standard and a new standard will have to be found. All of this is only the begining, and it will happen within a decade.

Bush wasn't blamed for Katrina, he was blamed for how he handled that situation. Every international conflict has a humanitarian side to it does it not?

The Lebanese are free to elect their own government. They choose to elect some representatives that are decidedly anti-Israeli. They choose not to control military elements operating within their political territory that are not subject to the will of their politicians. They have created the conditions that brought them to this point in time. I have no sympathy for a government that would choose to act in this manner. While I may not much care for that government I do feel bad for some of the citizens of that nation. The sad truth is that their own citizens have brought these actions upon themselves.

I've been to Tuk, not many have by the way and it would not be the last choice for those that have been there. If you are talking about UN reforms and moving the UN, then you folks are on the right track. New York is a bad place to place the headquarters because it is easily accessible and decidedly pro American. If you want the UN to work, the home of the headquarters needs to be at least on nuetral ground, not on the home turf of the most powerful nation of the world. It looks bad this way. Many see the UN as a puppet organization just because of its structure and location. Move the headquarters, restructure the international body, eliminate the veto and then you can begin to utilize this international body to do some real progressive work. It needs to be utilized as a judicial institution. It should be the home of world opinion that can be legally enforced through democratic means. If the organization was moved to Canada, or any other nation for that matter, a new city could be created for the sole purpose of functioning as the home for international organizations. The city could be constructed with embassies from the nations of the world housing the representatives of each nation. Each nation could have a large compound to showcase their unique cultural identities. Security could be provided by having each nation provide a military escort to their embassy as well as providing an additional contingent for a multinational force. The city should be constructed with only air access possible to provide an additional means of protection. The multinational force can become the first world tactical deployment force. This new force would be under the control of the UN. There are lots of ways to change the face of the UN to make it more functional. The key is perception, it must look like it is not subject to partisan control.

Canada will be wherever the leadership of this country takes us. Face reality, inside of a few decades the USA will no longer be the dominant power on this earth. China will rise and many will fall. Its time to think in terms of political evolution. Canada can adapt or die. Kissing up to the Americans will cease to function well when their little empire crumbles, as it will. If Canadians were smart they would start thinking less globally and more locally. If we lose dominance in our own market were are as done as dinner. We already import way to much stuff and decided long ago not to even try to compete with third world nations for manufacuring jobs. We have made many mistakes, but we may yet be able to overcome these things.

Liberatarianism I understand. Anarchy theory will require some looking into I guess.

STNG was a democracy of universal proportions. Communism is not an option. Socialism is, but not communism.

If this statement was true, then I will suggest that he was simply ducking. Keep in mind that everything a leader of a nation does is political and with that knowledge you can see that he was just taking the steps that can be expected. If it is true, then he is guilty of a faux pas.

You have terrorists living amonst civilians. You strike at the terrorists and there is collateral damage, that is a fact. That is the problem isn't it. The terrorists know this and don't exactly setup shop in non-populated areas because of it. The civilians are cover for them, they use this very effectively as a political tool. Look at Iraq today and Ireland 20 years ago. There are big differences in the two nations but terrorism exists wherever people have political issues with the authorities. Terrorism is a political tool, not a military one. In Ireland terrorism ended with political independence, as it will in Iraq. As long as there is a perception of inequity there is fuel for terrorism. All that is needed is a few zealots with violent intentions to resolve political problems. Terrorism is a crime, nothing more and nothing less. With all due respect this latest conflict has nothing to do with anything less than the preservation of national identity, from each side. Both believe they are right. The simple truth is that Israel has no choice in attempting to prevent terrorism. They must protect their citizen. When it comes down to the crunch, their citizens are more important than others to them. Would you have your nation, wherever it is, react in any other way?