jdobbin

Open the Constitution?

It seems strange why the Tories would sponsor bills that would have likely died in the Senate. It does seem like some ploy.

What lie? Alberta receives $4 billion in transfers. We keep hearing from some here that they don't believe Alberta receives money from the feds but they do. And that doesn't include money from other federal spending. You seem to know the numbers. Let's see them/ Equalization does not provide money to cover deficits. Period. Never has. It is provided for programming standards that the Feds set. If you are so unhappy with equalization, vote Harper out of office. He has increased it. Stop patting the Tories on the back for increasing a program that you hate.

Now you're just grasping. It is obvious that you are very passionate and this is probably why you feel the need to personalize. You keep telling me your plan of sanctions will work but I have not seen it happen Don't think I have made any tacit approval of anything other than not to tuck turtle and say "a plague on both your houses." Think that we know the answer since Palestine and Israel have asked us to stay involved. If they thought your policy of disengagement and sanctions would work, they would have probably said so. Until Thursday, Hamas did not even recognize Israel's right to exist and was committed to their destruction. A little hard to negotiate from that point of view. And it wouldn't have happened if there was not a lot of work to keep going back to the table. Whereas your plan would likely not have even seen that. Nor would it have set the stage for what is now coming. Good. Now, you can support the work that is coming on the West Bank. You know this total focus on Israel and settlement and nothing on the Hamas attacks makes me think you have picked a side even if you keep saying your plan applies to both. Unfortunately, no one seems to be paying attention to your plan. Not even the NDP. Guess you won't be voting at all in the next election. Have to make a stand, right?

I don't recall Canada giving tacit support to settlements at any time. Your strategy won't work. Never has. Never will. The roadmap ended settlements in Gaza and will now the focus will be on the West Bank as we can see now. I'm sorry if no one seems interested in your approach including the Israelis and Palestinians. There was no tacit agreement. Just as there was no tacit agreement in support of rocket attacks. Both sides tried to seek advantages and set back the process. Not predicting anything. Just reporting the remarkable Thursday news that the Hamas accepted the two nations status. The end of settlements in Gaza shows that process works. The majority of the world followed the sanations route. The ones that didn't were following there own Cold War strategies. And the ending of settlements in Gaza. Ye of little faith...

I haven't used those words. I said Canada's support is and should not be an uncritical one. I called your idea disengagement which is what is is.

No settlements in Gaza. Change has happened. It will continue to happen. Left with no choice, huh? If you can't control your emotion, they will get the best of you. We have seen Israel turn over land they occupied. We will see it again. And none of it will have happened as a result of sanctions. And you turn a blind eye on Hamas' stand on not recognizing Israel and their longstanding policy of taking all of Israel back? I don't recall any attempts to change South Africa or Iraq's behaviour that didn't involve sanctions and disengagement. No one has an unbiased view of the situation least of all you. Nope. Looks like things are back on track.

Neither did I but the numbers were so astoundingly high that even Bush must have eventually realized that the beliefs of so many people about the September 11 link threatened his presidency. I don't know that there anyone wants to send a military to occupy the place when even Pakistan forces are routinely massacred. The only objective would be in the face of a collapse: Secure the nuclear weapons. I think terrorism forces are well entrenched now. It remains to be seen if Iraq's experience of insurgency results in terrorism world-wide in the years ahead. It was one of the reasons why he didn't gain traction. There was this feeling that he'd keep fighting in Iraq. The way he was talking, it looked like he might be taking the fight to Iran as well. Think people just got weary of the many years of conflict that seemed to be in the future. They keep talking about full scale departure in 2011. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8132561.stm Both Biden and Obama said this week that the timetable remains in place. Full departure by 2011. I haven't heard anything that contradicts that.

If you want to score points politically on equalization, it would be good to look to your own leader. According to you, he is the one pillaging Alberta to give money to Quebec.

The polls consistently showed that people believed this and some of the media that was supportive of Bush went to lengths to try and make that connection. Except in Pakistan, it seems. There was no terrorism in Iraq or supported by Iraq that could be traced to the attacks of al Qaeda. McCain said troops would stay in Iraq as long as they were out of harm's way but in that same talk on Meet the Press, he said they would be present for a fight until "success" is achieved. Comparing the presence to Japan, Germany or Korea ignores the fact that insurgency still happens. The country continues to be itching for a civil war. It is doubtful the U.S. can keep a lid on these feelings if that is the route Iraq wants to go. Unlike McCain, Obama continues to stick to a plan of getting out of Iraq by 2011.

Why blame Manitoba for a federal government program that Harper obviously supports with the increases he authorized?

Subsequently, there is a sense of betrayal and extreme distrust about the whole war. The fact that so many people thought that Iraq was directly responsible for September 11 was something Bush should have cleared up right away. I think some people almost expected Saddam to be brought back to the U.S. to stand trial for the attacks. I don't Saudi Arabia was afraid of an invasion. Money still flows to fund terrorist operations around the world. He talked about Korea but in Meet the Press, it certainly sounded like a fight rather than a presence.

And because of his choice Americans believe they were sold a bill of goods according to the polls and their election choice. That remains to be seen as well. McCain seemed to believe that.

Harper was in power then. Harper increased equalization. Blame Harper.

There are no industrial nations aside from the U.S. that don't have equalization programs. The federal government sets such programs up so that standards don't change from one region to the other. For all the Tories who seem to get angry about the program, they should take note that Harper increased equalization.

And now progress can begin on West Bank. Certainly the statement from Hamas last Thursday gives hope to that idea. I do. The indications now that Hamas for the first time has publicly supported the idea of two states and that they open to negotiation on how to get back on the roadmap that was derailed by recent violence. Just like the conservatives, you make excuses for your insults. You share a lot in common. Actually yes. Gaza settlement was stopped. There are two thing I know won't happen. One: The Israelis won't go for a divided capital. Two" The Palestinians won't go for recognizing the state of Israel (at least Hamas won't). The fact is that you can't link sanctions to changing behaviour in South Africa or Iraq. Look, unlike you, I think that there are some interesting things happening on the Middle East front. The overtures from Hamas, from Syria, from the Palestian Authority and from Obama all seem to indicate there might be some movement on critical security issues and settlement on the West Bank. Barak and Mitchell are now meeting in London on a comprehensive plan that will see a freeze on settlements in exchange for regional peace agreements.

I'm afraid you are wrong. Support for the mission has been high. Disillusionment has sometimes set in because of Harper's wish to keep everything secret. However, support for troops and mission has remained high. Having said that, Canadians want a deadline in place. Given what the military keeps saying, the break is needed to get the forces back into form. The lack of training for raw recruits was remarked on this past week. Canada could have had 50,000 troops there and it would still be a problem filled area what with Pakistan being what it is. And they have. They also believe that, as in past wars, that armies have to rotated off the front lines lest they break.

You certainly haven't tried. I've mentioned it numerous times.

I'm talking about $4 billion of federal transfers which I have shown here repeatedly from Canadian and Alberta websites. If Alberta did not receive this $4 billion, I suspect they would have even greater deficits, right?

You can say what you want but a majority of Americans according to numerous polls believe they were deceived about the war. That remains to be seen. At the moment, it looks like things are sliding again. This was the danger of going in in the first place. Once in, hard to ever get out and always a target while you're there. I realize that that many on the right believe the U.S. should stay there with a full force pretty much forever but politically, it is a no go zone. There is a reason why Republicans lost big in the last election. Part of it was the fear of a continuation of Bush policies on Iraq.

Why does Alberta receive $4 billion in transfers from the federal government?

That the American people felt they were sold of bill of goods in regards to the war. The weapons issue was a pretext to remove Saddam in the hope they could improve the situation. Well, what they got was the quagmire that Dick Cheney had warned about years before. And the jury is out on whether Iraq will be a safe place from here on in. The U.S. military is already concerned about the spike in violence.

I think it is you who wants to change the focus. You want to say that it has all been a complete failure but the roadmap was about a process that moved from place to place. The initial phase was about Gaza and was successful in removing settlers, not so good for ending violence from there, There is one thing in common that you have with some conservatives and that seems to be the tendency to get angry and insult. I think a deep breath might be good. Both sides agreed to the process on Gaza. The Palestinians let the process break down on security and the Israelis let it break down on continued settlements on the West Bank. The focus is now on getting things back on track on the West Bank. No. Ah, taking credit for South Africa's changes because sanctions were in place. Sanctions did not force South Africa to do anything. As long as they battled the ANC, no amount of sanctions had any effect. The sanctions only made the Iraqis suffer. It was the actual blockade and threat of military action that was used fairly frequently that allowed for inspectors to do their job. South Africa was in part a battle of Cold War enemies. Israel also fell under that umbrella until around the same time. Canada used sanctions to no effect in South Africa although you seem to think they worked. They don't. They are the illusion of action. They usually just invite suffering on the general population.

I know the litany of reasons. However, the Bush administration pressed the urgency of the need to act immediately and produced intelligence that was inaccurate.

Any independent analysis of that?