WestViking

I submit we have taken Taliban Jack's bait, hook, line and sinker. The thread title could be Taliban Jack's end run Conservatives can rest assured that Harper’s governance to date is sound enough that the NDP and Liberals want no part of a traditional election campaign or to debate issues important to voters. The NDP, openly aided and abetted by the Liberal mainstream media, is trying to focus public attention and Parliament on debating the war on terror in an effort to drown out Conservative government agenda announcements expected with the opening of the fall session of Parliament next week. Rather than actually dealing with a broken-down justice system, a broken equalization system, Senate reform, income tax relief, EI overhaul, and a host of other economic and social ills that have languished, unattended, for a dozen years, the opposition wants to reopen the May 2006 debate on Canada’s commitment to NATO in Afghanistan. Taliban Jack Layton and his supporters must not be allowed to hijack the Parliamentary agenda to debate a decision on Afghanistan not six months old and to engage in a protracted debate on foreign policy while they have nothing constructive to offer us at home. The opposition may well fear Conservative governance competence but debating foreign affairs at the cost of moving ahead on domestic improvements is not an acceptable alternative to offer the public. At election time, we shall remember and remind voters that the cake offered by the opposition is the stale stuff of incompetents, scallywags and rogues seeking refuge by wrapping themselves in a flag they otherwise disdain.

Nah, lightning strikes are done at a higher level and the Pope has better taste. Leftists dispise the Pope as he stands for the ethics and morality they shun. Too bad, really, that they cannot diferentiate between being secular and being immoral. Being amoral does not mean you are secular.

Ypou missed quoting the lead article in the piece your cite: 'Standing shoulder to shoulder' does not mean committing troops we do not have. However, when Iraq was invaded we had a large portion of our navy and a substantial air force segment in the theatre of war, but the Liberals refused to admit it. Yoou are barking up the wrong tree for the wrong reasons.

He also said Canada should go to Iraq. Why is he mincing around now? Provide the quote please. Harper has not advocated sending troops to Iraq for the simple reason we don't have the troops to send, irrespective of what Jack Layton may choose to say. We are committed to the NATO action in Afghanistan until 2009 and will not have the resources to allow a military commitment elsewhere before that. We have and are providing training personnel for Iraqi police units but the training is not done in Iraq.

Jack Layton’s hatred for the USA and international institutions such as NATO are so palpable he contradicts himself openly and is ready to commit Canadian troops to dubious leadership under the United Nations flag in Lebanon to fight terrorism while at the same time decrying the loss of troops under competent military leadership fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. Layton is all about image and posturing without reason or substance. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFAL) is a disaster. It has sat on its hands for 28 years (apparently that is ‘interim’ in UN language) watching Hezbollah grow, amass weapons and make covert attacks on Israel instead of following its mandate to disarm the terrorists and keep the peace. UNIFAL is indirectly responsible for the recent outbreak of war in Lebanon. It failure to follow its mandate to ensure peace in the region has resulted in thousands of needless deaths and major destruction of the captive southern Lebanon. Jack Layton has no concept of peacekeeping or how it is done. Sending Canadians into Lebanon to be murdered under the auspices of the United Nations, which has not had a successful ‘peacekeeping’ operation in over 30 years is reprehensible.

The notion that anyone who agrees with or supports a position that Bush has taken is wrong is not supportable or sustainable. Simply because Bush has taken a position does not make that position wrong. Simply because someone reaches the same conclusion does not indicate that person is a Bush supporter. The mindless blather gets tiresome. Making a statement does not make the assumptions therein correct; it simply indicates that the proponent (author, speaker) is unwilling to apply independent analysis and thought, choosing to repeat the incorrect assumptions of others and assumes that everyone else suffers the same lack of initiative.

And you think U.S. security is doing all these things? How much are you willing to pay for a flight that most experts say can never be totally secure? Let's fix the problems with Canadian airport security before we point fingers at the neighbours. El Al seems to manage top notch security with minimal passenger disruption. Perhaps we have something to learn. Not even a trip to the supermarket is completely without risks. That does not prevent us from taking logical and reasonable steps to milimize air travel risks. We already pay a premium for air travel security when we buy a ticket - we also pay a premium at many airports for 'upgrades and improvements', but I don't see much except inconvenience and window dressing in place of proper security measures.

Transport Canada snores on. It is difficult to understand why Transport Canada cannot take air travel safety seriously. It is not as if air piracy, hijackings or skyjackings are new, nor is the take-over of aircraft for political purposes. This has been going on for over 75 years. The first recorded aircraft hijack attempt was made on February 21, 1931, in Arequipa, Peru. Byron Rickards, flying a Ford Tri-motor, was approached on the ground by armed revolutionaries. He refused to fly them anywhere and after a ten day stand-off Rickards was informed that the revolution was successful and he could go in return for giving one of their number a lift to Lima. During 1967-76 there were 385 incidents. In 1977-86 the total was 300 and in 1987-96 there were 212. Over a 30 year span, there were almost 900 incidents. Transport Canada took no measures to ensure safety of Canadian flights. Although the Air India disaster took place in 1985, Transport Canada is still focusing its prevention methods on passengers and only recently began security screening of airport personnel who have access to the baggage, food, supplies and aircraft at our air terminals. Baggage is still not thoroughly checked for explosives. Where are the explosive detection devices and x-ray machines that can detect questionable luggage for further scrutiny quickly and efficiently? The ineffective and silly security measures undertaken following the horrors in New York 11 September 2001 are still in place. Passengers endure lengthy waits while grandmothers and children take off shoes for inspection. Explosive detectors are nowhere in evidence. The prohibition against profiling is stunning. It is hard to think of a more inane excuse for inconveniencing travellers than subjecting them all to checks to ensure that people have no hurt feelings. No one can explain how this makes air travel safer. Why are we not doing thorough checks on passengers who fit the profile of past skyjack attempts or who are from nations where terrorists congregate, train and operate from? Banning all liquids en flight is silly. The imbeciles who thought this one up failed to take into account that many people like to have water or juice available on a long flight. No one considered that having water and juice available for purchase in the secure area of the airport would allow some measure of comfort for travellers. Transport Canada even refused to allow liquids purchased in the duty-free shops in the secure section of the airport to be taken on an aircraft. Apparently goods for sale in the secure section of the airport have not been checked to ensure that contraband has not been smuggled in. This is a huge security breach. Years ago a security person insisted on seizing my nail clippers, which were useless as a weapon, while happily clearing my laptop computer oblivious to the possibility that I had replaced the CD drive or second battery with explosives. I cannot avoid the conclusion that current airport security measures are based on the premise that if enough passengers are sufficiently inconvenienced, the public will assume something constructive is being done. It is not. Airport security stinks. • People with electronic gear should be able to have their items checked by qualified personnel and sealed with tamper-proof tape prior to going to a security check. • Explosive detection sniffers should be in use at every airport security check. • Checked baggage should be thoroughly screened for explosives. • Airlines should be promoting heavy duty vinyl bags for holding liquids and gels safely in checked luggage and providing low cost, low deductible insurance against lost or damaged baggage. • Passengers should know that they can purchase water, juice, milk and reading material in the secure area of the airport and take their purchases on board with them. Security must be an integral, seamless part of air travel, not an add-on that disrupts and inconveniences travellers. If Transport Canada cannot treat passengers with dignity and respect while ensuring their safety, the responsibility should be given to Justice or Public Safety either of which has a wealth of experience in applied security. The insanity has to stop before a lot of people are needlessly killed.

Parts of southern Lebanon have been heavily damaged. That is what happens when rogue armies use populated areas to mount attacks from. The devastation was both predictable and planned by Hezbollah in the event that anyone shot back at them. Hezbollah has been illegally shelling Israel for years. The UN should have stepped in and stopped them. The results would have been similar; buildings and infrastructure destroyed, civilians injured and killed, and the Lebanese weeping over the destruction. The United Nations has proven to be good at passing resolutions and useless at enforcing the resolutions it makes. Israel stepped up and did what the UN lacked the moral courage and principles to do. If stopping terrorists from terrorizing a sovereign neighbour nation bothers you, you are an enemy of civilization and lawful societies.

I could not find anywhere where their platform of '96 calls for the total destruction of the Israeli state. I know of the 1985 document that does call for the elimination of the zionist entity. But the 96 document is what is published on their websites, not the 85 document. Your inability to read and comprehend simple English renders your arguments nul and void. What that paragraph says to me is that they will continue the resistance until Israel leaves the occupied lands. Occupied strip is reference to the Gaza strip. They also mention to refuse to take seriously the negotiations that would allow Israel to have any control over the palestinians at the expense of the palestinians. What the paragraph implies is that if Israel makes final borders within the legal Israeli state, the resistance will end. So what did i miss? Andrew "until our occupied land is completely liberated and restored to the national sovereignty" "away from any direct or indirect presence of the usurping Zionists" Isreal does not occupy either the West Bank or Gaza, so what area is Hezbollah "liberating" if not the state of Isreal itself? Restored to the national sovereignty is bullroar as the West Bank is a no-mans land that Jordan has refused to recognize as its own.

I could not find anywhere where their platform of '96 calls for the total destruction of the Israeli state. I know of the 1985 document that does call for the elimination of the zionist entity. But the 96 document is what is published on their websites, not the 85 document. Your inability to read and comprehend simple English renders your arguments nul and void.

The government is not going to fail over this. And the reason that there was no deal is because the U.S. didn't want a deal. However, after losing NAFTA and now WTO, they could have eventually had to obey the law or face countervailing duties. It was starting to get embarassing for the president who was advocating freer trade. After last year's steel embarrassment, they wanted to make a deal rather than face countervailing duties. Sure, Canada was going to impose countervailing duties on...., well on.... and on ....... what? What countervailing duties would get American attention? Please, please tell us. Enquiring minds would like to know.

Why else would he refer to going after them worldwide? Part of the terrorist patter - we can get you anywhere - you cannot hide from us - be afraid, be very afraid.

I don't think it's anti-semitism in most cases. The people who hate Israel are usually the same people that hate the U.S. for whatever reasons. Pure envy which quickly transforms into hatred. If you can't join 'em or beat 'em, hate 'em. Works for most leftists.

Nope. Don't do that. And as an RO for the last Leadership vote, I woudld know.

When 25,000 people attend a conference to talk about a disease that does as much damage as this one and your country is the host country, you usually attend. Considering how many Canadian scientists are working on this and the type of additonal cures for ailments that might result from the research, it certainly doesn't hurt to be a good host. Just what exactly is Harper doing this week? Someting useful, actually, which 90% of the AIDS conferenece attendees were not engaged in.

And I have said that Chretien was stupid not to attend. If you look further, you'll see much Conservative criticism of that decision. So were the Tories wrong then? Intersting, since there were only two conservatives in Parliament in 1996 - was it Jean Chrest or Elsie Wayne making all the noise? Or is it you making unfounded speculations?

Chretien under fire for shunning AIDS conference Reuters NewMedia, Inc. - 5 July 1996 TORONTO - Canadian AIDS activists said on Friday they regretted Prime Minister Jean Chretien's decision to shun an international AIDS conference in Vancouver and urged him not to give up the fight against AIDS. The 11th International Conference on AIDS opens on Sunday in Vancouver, but Chretien has said he is too busy to attend. This will be the first time in the history of the conference that the head of government of the host country will not open the event. "We're extremely disappointed," said Brian Huskins, president of the Canadian AIDS Society. A full-page advertisement run by a group called AIDS Action Now in Toronto's Globe & Mail newspaper on Friday urged Chretien not to "give up on AIDS...lives are at stake." But activists said that Chretien was afraid to show up because his government had not renewed the National AIDS Strategy beyond 1998. The strategy is designed to coordinate the government's response to the pandemic and guarantee a certain level of funding. About 9,600 people are believed to have died in Canada from AIDS. Conference organisers said that Chretien's decision made it impossible for South African President Nelson Mandela to attend, because of protocol. Mandela had planned to go until Chretien sent his regrets, they said.

AIDS Conference organizers have shown themselves up as the incapable spoiled brats they are. These malcontents have shown their true colours by attacking our Prime Minister for not allowing them to hijack our political agenda and put the nation’s business on hold for their benefit. With many others, I had hoped that the 2006 AIDS Conference would turn out to be something more than the usual group-hug of political lobbyists and vacuous celebrities. Any conference more intent on attracting a cheering section than getting actual work done is unworthy of support. I would be very surprised if over 10% of the 24,000 delegates had the expertise or influence to have any effect on combating AIDS. The AIDS Conference is an expensive showpiece of what is wrong with the efforts to combat the ailment. If organizers intend to attract $ millions in donations to their cause, they should consider that the enormous wasted expense of their cheering section is not lost on us.

They are not just innocent children, they are unsupervised CRIMINAL brats. Ten year olds engaged in arson and auto theft are not normal or innocent children and their behaviour is not to be tolerated - by anyone. These modern-day ‘Artful Dodgers’ have to be placed in a properly supervised and caring environment for the protection of society. The courts need to be able to hold parents responsible and issue orders making said parents pay restitution for damages by their offensive offspring. We are tired of imbeciles who will not discipline their offspring and insist that no one else can speak to let alone discipline these unmannered, destructive and at times criminal little monsters. Some parents don’t want their children disciplined in school or on the playground, which is their right – however they then have the responsibility for cleaning up the mess and paying restitution for damages. If parents won’t parent then society will step in and do it for them.

AIDS Conference organizers have shown themselves up as the incapable spoiled brats they are. These malcontents have shown their true colours by attacking our Prime Minister for not allowing them to hijack our political agenda and put the nation’s business on hold for their benefit. With many others, I had hoped that the 2006 AIDS Conference would turn out to be something more than the usual group-hug of political lobbyists and vacuous celebrities. Any conference more intent on attracting a cheering section than getting actual work done is unworthy of support. I would be very surprised if over 10% of the 24,000 delegates had the expertise or influence to have any effect on combating AIDS. The AIDS Conference is an expensive showpiece of what is wrong with the efforts to combat the ailment. If organizers intend to attract $$$ millions in donations to their cause, they should consider that the enormous wasted expense of their cheering section is not lost on us.

That's a distinct possibility. However, generally the government leader just gives a welcoming speech to the delegates and 3000 journalists and lists what his own host country is doing in the fight against AIDs. It isn't usually that controversial. Harper had staff with him in Cyprus - photograhers? Please show your source.

Harper is the duly elected Prime Minister of Canada whether you like it or not. Your vitriol aimed at Bush and Howard is completely unsupported leftist rants, and while you are entltied to an opinion, you are also entitled to be wrong and are very wrong. You should pay closer attention to those you disparage. Harper has made it very clear that Hezbollah must release the prisoners it kidnapped, cease its attacks on Israel at once and recognize the right of Israel and her citizens to exist in safety and security. It is by far the clearest plan for an end to hostilities to date. Few Canadians share your views on the Middle East or your ignorance of international law, conventions and diplomacy. Many of us recognize the threat to liberty that modern terrorism and terrorist organization embody. We look to leadership with an international capability, but recognize that domestic affairs are equally important. Harper fills the bill and is a refreshing change from the self-centered amoral dithering of his predecessors. Few of us define ourselves in terms of being anti-American. Those who define themselves by degrading others and the efforts of others are amoral, rudderless ciphers incapable of contributing to society or to the wider world community.At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of snivelling brats.