WestViking

On the contrary. The will of Parliament on Kyoto must be followed. Bil C-288 is fatally flawed. You can read the text here: Bill C-288 I expect the government will make the required plan and introduce tough enabling legislation when Parliament resumes for a fall session. When the costs and potential job losses are on the table and open to debate, we will see how Parliament responds.

BINGO! You finally get it. You cannot send our military into battle and then tell the enemy you think you have made a mistake, that you never expected anyone to get hurt, let alone killed, and they are far too fierce to be thwarted.

You've established your national security discussion credentials right there. Anyone who takes your posts seriously deserves what they get. Really! Yous seem to have a selective memory. Please explain this: Taliban would laugh at Jack Layton should visit Afghanistan before he urges talks with murderous fanatics By Licia Corbella Calgary Sun September 3, 2006 I recall the first time I travelled to Rome I was completely blown away by how old it was. I would point at various buildings while my cousins drove so expertly through the seemingly chaotic but actually well-ordered traffic, and repeatedly asked: "How old is that?" At first my cousin Bianca would ponder the question for a few seconds. "That is 2,000 years old," or "that is about 1,000 years old" or "that is not so old, maybe 800 years" etc. etc. Within a day or two her answers would be more brusque: "1,000," "2,000," "500." I did a similar thing in Afghanistan in December 2003 to the various interpreters who expertly drove me around Kabul in the literally chaotic traffic. Only, instead of asking them how old is this or that, I would ask "who destroyed that building?" or "who flattened this block?" or "who bombed the palace?" or "who burned the movie theatre?" At first, like my cousin, the interpreters would turn their head, look at the building and consider their answer. "That was burned by the Taliban," or "that was bombed by the Taliban," or "the Taliban flattened this entire block" etc. Eventually, one of our interpreters, Patrice, turned to me and essentially said, "the destruction you see everywhere, 99.9% of it was caused by the Taliban. The war with the Soviet Union actually didn't destroy much of this city, in fact, the Soviets actually built a lot of the buildings" and he would point out the ugly, still-standing tenements that looked like luxury in that destroyed city. He went on to explain further. "The only things the Taliban didn't destroy were their own houses, their own businesses and mosques. They destroyed everything, made people destroy any art and photos of their families, all books but the Qur'an and they murdered thousands of people with no trial. They destroyed this entire country. I hate them. Everyone hates them." The Taliban -- which literally means "religious scholars" were, and still are, fascistic Islamists who hate all who disagree with them and are intent on killing them. These are the people NDP Leader Jack Layton wants to sit down with and negotiate a peace settlement with. "We believe that a comprehensive peace process has to bring all combatants to the table," said Layton on Thursday, when he called for Canadian troops to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan. "You don't accomplish peace if those who are fighting are not involved in a peace-based discussion that's fundamental," added Layton. What he refuses to acknowledge is you also don't accomplish peace when one of the groups you are fighting doesn't want peace, they only want to terrorize an entire country and rule that country with a draconian iron fist. So, I urge Jack, go right ahead. It's clear he should visit Afghanistan because he clearly has no clue what he's talking about or who he thinks our soldiers are dealing with. So, go sit down with the Taliban, Jack. If all they do is laugh at you, you'd be lucky because the likely outcome would either be an axe blade embedded into your skull delivered cowardly from behind (as happened to Canadian Lieut. Trevor Greene, who almost died) or some kind of a slower death, such as burying you up to your neck and stoning you in the soccer stadium (as happened to tens of thousands of innocent Afghans for heinous sins such as hiding photographs of their family, reading a book other than the Qur'an or being accused of adultery) or simply cutting off your head with a dull and rusty knife while screaming "Allah is great!" (as continues to happen today in some Islamist states to presumptuous and well-meaning western infidels who fall into the wrong hands.) So, actually, I don't recommend trying to sit down with the Taliban. But I do recommend Layton visit Afghanistan, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done and just this past week Gordon O'Connor, Canada's defence minister did. In Afghanistan, Jack would meet with Afghan people, particularly women, who, as soon as they would find out he was Canadian, would say something I heard dozens of times in my 12 days in that des-troyed -- but rapidly improving country. "Thank you so much for what your country is doing. Because of Canadian troops, I now have clean wells where I can get water for free, I can once again work to help support my children after my husband was murdered by the Taliban. My girls can once again attend school in buildings built by Canadian troops and supplied with Canadian supplies. "Thank you for giving us hope again after we lived in hell for so many years." Those are the exact words I heard from Mahfooza, a young widow, who looked much older than her 32 years, who lived in a hillside village just outside of Kabul. While virtually everyone in Afghanistan suffered terribly under the Taliban it was women and children who suffered most. Women had to remain covered up when in public completely. The windows of their homes had to be blackened to ensure that no man could gaze upon them when they were inside their homes. They were not allowed to work and were not allowed to be in the presence of men who were not relatives. That meant they could not ever see a doctor, since females doctors were not allowed to practise. Toys were banned. Music was banned. Photographs and pictures of any natural object had to be destroyed. They were prisoners for three years, unable to feel the sun on their skin the whole time which led to severe vitamin deficiencies that caused many of them to lose their hair and teeth. Many starved. Many others purposefully walked out in front of trucks to be killed. Jack Layton wants to negotiate with people who think such a society is ideal. What a buffoon.

I'd call the NDP's move to end participation before 2009 a stupid one. While it might appeal to some at home, it doesn't sound like a well thought out exit strategy. Do you think if the will of Parliament says that they should stay till 2009, they should stay? Do you think the will of Parliament should always be obeyed? You avoided the question once more. Layton heads the arguments on Afghanistan but is not alone; he has not introduced a bill to deal with the issue so that Parliament can reconsider its commitment and that is objectionable. The constant carping undermines support for troops we have asked to put their lives on the line. Those who insist on second guessing our commitment in public are somewhere between seditionists and traitors. They are comforting an enemy engaging our military. We cannot put our military in a war theatre and then speculate openly on the wisdom of our decision, or try to tell them not to engage the enemy but keep a peace that does not exist. If we want to see soldiers slaughtered, insist they ignore Taliban attacks while they build roads and schools. We are doing both, but only because we have fighting men protecting the builders. No nation engages in a war expecting to lose. We engage the enemy, win a peace, and bring our troops home. An 'exit strategy' is just a euphemism for an admission of defeat and retreat, which used by anti-war types without common sense. We made a commitment to our NATO allies to stay in Afghanistan until 2009 and ratified that commitment in Parliament. Dion and Layton want us out of Afghanistan but fret over our international reputation. They cannot have it both ways. The last session of Parliament turned into a fiasco as the opposition was so intent on attacking the government that it failed to notice that many attacks contradicted one another as far as any form of coherent policy is concerned. Ultimately, the will of Parliament must be followed or our democracy fails.

I don't know. What do you call Harper for refusing to accept the will of the House on Kyoto? Quit the bobbing and weaving - answer the question, please. Then we can deal with Kyoto if you like.

Who is refusing to accept the will of parliament? Play nice - I asked first.

Nice try. Now answer the question, please: Educate us and tell us what you do call politicians who refuse to accept the will of Parliament to continue deployment of our military in Afghanistan until February 2009?

Typical right wing response about low support for the mission being about cowardice. If that's the case, the vast majority of the people are Canada are yellow according to the polls. No, many Canadians are misled and outright lied to by the media and some politicians. Taliban Jack wants to sit and negotiate with terrorist groups. What rational argument will persuade someone who wants to elevate an amoral, hostile, murderous gang of cut-throats with no homeland to nation status that he is dead wrong in doing so? That is rather like a sheep sitting down with a pack of wolves to discuss the dinner menu. Please educate us and tell us what you do call politicians who refuse to accept the will of Parliament to continue deployment of our military in Afghanistan until February 2009?

LOL! Utter nonsense. The only reason that the Afghanistan mission was not defeated in Parliament when an extension to 2009 came up for a vote was that the Liberals would have been seen to vote against themselves - they made the commitment to send troops in the first place. Given another two years and the short memory of the public, the Liberals will vote down any motion to keep our word to NATO and Afghanistan. The NDP and BQ are dead set against sending troops to anywhere except some rotten sewer in Africa and then only under UN control. Every UN led military mission has been an absolute disaster, with the most recent debacle in Lebanon, where UN 'peace keepers' clearly sided with Hezbollah terrorists during the fighting there. Between now and February 2009 you are far more likely to see a private member's bill supported by Jack Layton to pull our military out of Afghanistan immediately than any other move on this file. Leftists and the majority of the media love terrorists and hate every aspect of the military. They claim to want 'world peace', but lack the ethics, morality and principles to fight for peace or anything else that may require some sacrifice. It is dead wrong for our Parliament to send the military into battle overseas and then spend every week thereafter screaming on the floor of the Commons that our soldiers should not be dying in Afghanistan. What did they expect? That the Taliban would greet our soldiers with arm-loads of roses, turn in their weapons at the base PX and start farming instead of training terrorists and dealing in drugs? Face facts. At the first opportunity the opposition in Parliament will end our participation in the war on terror. Harper can’t stop them with a minority, but he can make sure the yellow shows up clearly.

You said the sanction of Parliament is needed for legislation. Senate terms and elections do not have that sanction yet Harper expects based on his whim that he can push it through. I said that I did not want to see income tax rates changed at the whim pf a PM, without the sanction of Parliament. If you want to discuss the Senate, start a thread.

Sort of like Senate elections? You make no sense whatever.

What the Tories did do is reverse a policy that would have benefited lower income people more than a GST cut. And now their budgets are way over the what they said they would spend in the campaign. All that money spent and still not enough to get into majority territory. Policy? What policy? If reduced taxation was policy, the Liberals would have included it in their spring 2005 budget. They did not. Bill C-80, introducing a retroactive tax cut was introduced on November 23, 2005 and the Election Writ was issued November 28, 2005. Martin knew he was cooked, and acted out of spite. He has not been held accountable for illegally changing tax forms or the cost to the treasury as he should have been. I would like to see lower taxes, but do not condone implementing a tax reduction without the sanction of Parliament. The reason is very simple; if income tax can be reduced on the whim of the Prime Minister, it can also be increased in the same capricious manner. No PM should wield that sort of power.

You mean alternate exports like this? Google "Israel exports" and get set for an education.

Only Dion would admit that he voted in favour of a motion recognizing the Quebecois as a nation within the nation of Canada while he had no idea what he was voting for. "Did you see a large group of people go by? What direction were they going in? I have to find them for I am their leader."

That doesn't mean they were approved. Some of the cuts were. The 1/2 point cut the Conservatives reversed wasn't. Ergo taxes weren't raised. Finance Minister Ralph Goodale introduced Bill C-80, 'An Act to implement certain income tax reductions' for first reading November 23, 2005. A summary of Bill C-80 follows: Bill C-80 SUMMARY This enactment (a) provides an increase of $500 to the basic personal amount — the amount of income that Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax — effective January 1, 2005, and makes consequential amendments to other personal amounts accelerating the increases to the personal amounts implemented pursuant to the 2005 federal budget; and ( reduces the lowest 16% federal income tax rate to 15%, effective January 1, 2005. Bill C-80 never made it past first reading and died on the order paper. No part of the Martin government retroactive income tax reduction for 2005 was legal. Text of Bill C-80 Staus of Bill C-80 We could hold an inquiry into who authorized illegal changes to the 2005 tax year forms, but only if Liberals keep insisting there was a fictitious tax hike in 2006.

They were staggered changes. The half-point cut didn't come into effect on January 1, 2006. Please, try and not misrepresent such a basic fact. It doesn't help discussion. All it really does is further the reputation for misrepresentation of Liberal supporters. They did not - from the piece you quoted: Liberals - The Liberal government increased the basic personal exemption by $500 in last November's fiscal update, and trimmed the tax rate at the bottom income bracket to 15 per cent from 16 per cent. The November 2005 fiscal update was not presented to Parliament for ratification; The tax changes were promised by Martin, but were never ratified by Parliament as law because we went into an election. The article you link to makes it very clear that the tax reduction would only take effect if the Liberals returned to power - which they did not. The tax reductions for the lowest tax bracket you speak of are clearly shown in the article you cite under the heading: "WHAT THE PARTIES ARE PROMISING". Thank you for the verification of my position.

This last budget, in theory, was an election budget. There were no significant tax cuts. Of course the budget would have higher spending? Why, of course? Are these not Conservatives? Why are they spending at 3% to 4% higher than they promised in the last election? The last budget was crafted to avoid an election. It was not an 'election budget' in the usual meaning of the term.

PM, opposition agree: no election please Canada.com Reuters Sunday, June 24, 2007 LINK OTTAWA (Reuters) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal opposition leader Stephane Dion agreed on one thing on Friday: neither want an election any time soon. "As I said all winter long, Canadians don't want another election," Harper said in a speech to mark the end of Parliament's spring session. Harper has been in office for about 18 months and on Friday the Conservatives' second budget was passed by Parliament, a feat he boasted had not been achieved by a minority government in four decades. But polls show his party does not have enough support to win more than half of the seats in Parliament if a vote were held now. In fact, one poll this month put support for the Conservatives three percentage points behind the Liberals. The Liberals have not managed to improve their fortunes either under Dion. Dion was quick to dismiss any suggestion he might pull the plug on the minority Conservative government as a protest against its environmental policy, which he called a sham. "There are many, many things that I find wrong in this government and it's not a reason for me to say that, because these things are wrong, I'm ready to call an election," he told reporters.

That was a sham. The .5% reduction was part of Martin's (pre-election) November 2005 economic update. His government was defeated before the tax reduction was made law. In short, Martin misled the public by having tax forms changed before it was legal to do so. Reality bites. So did revenues. Bill C-52 spent 5 days in Finance Committee hearings and 11 days in Commons debate. Where were the opposition motions to cut spending and taxes? Get back to me when you find them.

And it has been accepted with universal acclaim by the country? Nope. If that was to be an election budget, it certainly didn't fit the bill. You make it sound like the last weeks were triumphant ones for the Tories. You really think so? You see no such thing in my reply above.

Where were you during the year 2005 when everyone was paying 15% on personal income tax and the personal exemption had been raised by $500 with more to come under a Liberal government??? If you can't answer the question, why bother to reply? Exactly when did the 15% tax take effect?

You missed the three provinces who have rejected the budget? You missed how Flaherty had to change his budget bill when corporations opposed one of the measures? Since when do provinces vote on a federal budget? Budget terms on tax breaks for foreign investmetns were modified prior to the budget passing in the commons as I recall, however main provision of the budget are now law. Money can flow.

THe budget Bill passed the Senate 45 to 21 last Friday and has received Royal Assent.

Really? Exactly when did the lowest tax bracket drop to 15%? I really would like to know. You seem to have missed the 14.29% reduction is the GST.

So who are the enemies, the bullies, the murderous tyrants here? For years, we have been told that “the Palestinians” hate Israel as a nation and Israelis as oppressors, murderers, and far worse. Yet, when the thugs of the Hamas terrorist group seize control over Gaza through a bloody coup, Israel transforms into a safe refuge for Palestinians! The irony is palpable. While Hamas gunmen continue to fire rockets into Israel hoping to kill or maim Israeli civilians, many of the Palestinians they claim to control quake in their shoes, fearful of revenge attacks on those who have not supported Hamas and plead for humanitarian aid. Clearly, Hamas represents no one but itself; not even those Palestinians who it has, by armed force, coerced into submission. The Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations, supported by neighbouring Arab states, are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The Palestinians are expendable pawns in this larger game, and can never enjoy peace or stability, as the terrorist strategy is to keep Gaza and the West Bank in continual ungovernable chaos. They cannot allow a peace for Palestinians and reach their objective. Access to lands abutting Israel is critical to terrorist tactics so a stable state of Palestine is not acceptable to them. The more moderate Fattah group cannot gain enough support to control and govern Gaza and the West Bank. Consequently, no one can speak for Palestinians with legitimate authority and no one can negotiate a peace. The charade of Yasser Arafat negotiating a peace plan while condoning continued bomb and sniper attacks on Israel should have taught us that negotiating with anyone dedicated to the destruction of Israel is futile. There is nothing whatever ‘humanitarian’ about providing aid to the Palestinians while leaving them at the mercy of murderous groups of terrorist gunmen with an agenda that is not in the best interests of Palestinians. Where is our outrage at the murder of non-combatants while the armed factions fight it out? Where is our anger at ‘justice’ meted out through the barrel of an automatic weapon? Who gave terrorists a free pass to engage in an endless series of barbarous attacks without consequences? Not long ago, Palestinians allegedly elected numerous Hamas representatives to their government. How is it that they are now refuges fleeing their representatives? The cock and bull story that passes for media coverage of the Middle East has more holes than a fishing net after a major storm. We need to seriously reconsider supplying aid to Palestinians. Keeping them alive to die on a crossfire between warring factions or in a crossfire with Israel is abhorrent. The terrorist have to go and Palestinians need a clear shot at creating a peaceful nation of their own. Change cannot happen while Hamas and Hezbollah are allowed to meddle in Palestinian affairs. If we are going to aid the Palestinians, we have to take control over Gaza and the West Bank, disarm or remove the terrorists and allow proper free election of people who represent the Palestinians, and who we can work with to bring and end to the vicious cycle of murder and reprisals that plague the region. Throwing money and aid at the Palestinians and hoping for the best is not working. Hundreds of Gaza refugees trapped at Israeli border CBC News Tuesday, June 19, 2007 Roughly 600 terrified Palestinians are stranded on Tuesday in a dangerous no-man's land at an Israeli border crossing, where they are running out of food and water, reports say. The Gazans are mostly Fatah supporters fleeing the region in the wake of the violent takeover by Hamas last week. But their only way out hinges on gaining permission at the Erez passage to go through Israeli territory for sanctuary in the West Bank. Israel refuses to allow that, fearing that the Palestinians could destabilize the quieter West Bank if they all flock there. In the meantime, the Gazans are sandwiched between high concrete walls about 10 metres apart. Tired women, children and young men sit on bare concrete amid trash and the narrow laneways reeked of urine and human waste, reports said. Many have been there for as many as five days. The stranded Fatah supporters have said they fear death or persecution if they return. More than 100 Palestinians died in the conflict and reports said some people were executed in the streets. Hamas grenade attack kills one On Monday, Hamas gunmen targeted the narrow Erez crossing by hiding themselves among the fleeing civilians and hurling grenades at Palestinians as well as Israeli soldiers. The attack killed one Palestinian and injured 15 others. However, Israel has maintained none of the Palestinians' lives are in danger. In a move to maintain order, Israeli tanks and armoured vehicles rolled up to the Palestinian side of Erez on Tuesday, chasing away cars parked next to the tunnel, including vehicles belonging to journalists. Israel, which has sophisticated weapons-screening equipment in place at Erez, said it was only letting the staff of international organizations, people with special permission and humanitarian cases to cross. "We don't think that all of them there are threatened," Nir Peres, a military liaison officer, told Israel Radio. Israel allowed about 50 senior Fatah officials and their families to cross into the West Bank from Gaza on the weekend, citing threats to their safety. Some 200 other Fatah officials are in Egypt, trying to get to the West Bank via Jordan, Fatah officials said. With files from the Associated Press ******************************************************************************** ******* Israel to admit 'humanitarian cases' from Gaza crossing CBC News Wednesday, June 20, 2007 The Israeli army will allow an unspecified number of Palestinians fleeing the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip to enter Israel, the Defence Ministry said Wednesday. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, who took over the position of Labour leader on Tuesday, instructed officials to let in "humanitarian cases," in apparent reference to people in need of medical treatment. An estimated 200 Palestinians have been stranded for days in a 270-metre tunnel between two high walls 10 metres apart at the Erez crossing from Gaza into Israel. Their only way out hinges on gaining permission to go through Israeli territory for sanctuary in the West Bank. Five Palestinians who were wounded in last week's fighting or in a subsequent attack on the tunnel by Hamas-allied fighters have already been admitted into Israel for medical treatment. Meanwhile, Israeli aircraft attacked Palestinian rocket launchers in northern Gaza on Wednesday, in the first Israeli airstrike since Hamas militants seized control of the coastal strip last week, the army said. There were no immediate reports of casualties. Aircraft attacked two rocket launchers after one rocket hit near the Israeli town of Sderot, the army said. Israeli troops also killed four Palestinian militants in separate battles in southern Gaza. Court challenge Israel has been reluctant to admit the Gazans at Erez, fearing that their admittance could destabilize the quieter West Bank and lead to a larger flood of refugees at the border crossing. But shortly after Barak's order was given, a 17-year-old boy with leukemia was on his way through the passage, Israeli military liaison official Shadi Yassin said. There is little sanitation in the tunnel and humanitarian groups have warned that some of the would-be refugees are in urgent need of medical care. Many have been there for as long as six days. The stranded Fatah supporters have said they fear death or persecution if they return. On Monday, Hamas gunmen targeted the narrow crossing by hiding themselves among the fleeing civilians and hurling grenades at Palestinians as well as Israeli soldiers. The attack killed one Palestinian and injured 15 others. Barak's decision came as Israel's Supreme Court was to hear a petition Wednesday from Israeli activist group Physicians for Human Rights seeking to force authorities to offer medical treatment to Palestinians caught at the crossing. Israel is allowing food into the territory, which has slightly eased concerns over a growing humanitarian crisis. Israel previously allowed about 50 senior Fatah officials and their families to cross into the West Bank from Gaza on the weekend, citing threats to their safety. Some 200 other Fatah officials are in Egypt, trying to get to the West Bank via Jordan, Fatah officials said. With files from the Associated Press