Higgly

All right. If a declaration of war does not suit the situation in Afghanistan, then one would think Harper would try to broaden the definition. When a country is at war, it may place priority on resources for that purpose, rejig certain aspects of the economy, and institute temporary border measures, for example. If a state of war is to have any meaning, then it has to be described in some way in legislation. Otherwise, it's whatever whoever decides to say it is. Canada is not at war in Afghanistan.

There is grumbling in the Liberal party that Dion wanted to bring the government down on the throne speech and the party blocked him. This is the problem with the Liberal Party. It is run by the Party, rather than the politicians. How else could they end up with a bozo like Ignatieff standing for leader?

Good one.

The latest budget projections for Afghanistan and Iraq now show a budget draw of One Trillion Dollars over the next ten years. To date, Bush has spent over 800 million dollars on this little adventure. When reminded by a correspondent that Paul Wolfowitz once projected that the Iraq war would be paid for by oil revenues, Dobbs commented that Wolfowitz is an "idiot". Dobbs, probably one of the only iconoclasts in American newsmedia, an certainly the only one on CNN, has been giving the Bush administration hell long before it was popular, starting with what he refers to as "the war on the middle class" which has seen jobs shipped off without check to the nether regions of the world, thanks to outfits like Walmart. Dobbs notes that the American economy is now largely backed by bondholders in China and India and that the dollar is falling like a stone. Dobbs has attracted some big talent, including Christine Romans, once star performer from CNBC.

I doubt Canadians will see Harper as especially good for getting legislation through in a minority situation. More likely they will see the Liberals as useless. One of the Es of triple E is effective. The senate will never be effective without some sort of real power and I cannot see a micro-manager like Harper ever giving the senate any real power at all.

Yeah Spain and Switzerland. Neutral as hell.

No kidding. I doubt that a lot of them have ever actually met a Moslem. Imagine what would happen if somebody put up a thread fretting that Jews were taking over the world. Now Americans trying to take over the world. That I can see.

Very good, M.Dancer. And who supplied the planes that bombed Guernica? I'll make it easy for you, here is a synopsis of the Wikipedia article on the bombing of Guernica...

Come on JBG. Moving anybody anywhere by virtue of their ethnic affinity is ethnic cleansing. Surely you don't expect to get away with this sort of argument. Were those Jews expelled or were they running to the new Jewish nation? And why did this happen in 1948, after centuries of peaceful coexistence?

The senate is irrelevant and likely to stay that way because only parliament can give it any power and fat chance that will happen.

Would that be 75% of its territory, or 75% of its empire? There is a difference, and I believe you know the answer. Spain was neutral? If you have any arty friends over there in Forest Hill, maybe you can get them to fill you in on Picasso's Guernica. Spain was not neutral. It just didn't fight. So I'll take that as a no, with respect to my question whether you have been to the US Holocaust Memorial . So you feel you ain't gettin' no respect, eh? Maybe you should go visit the Holocaust Memorial

Interesting about those Arabs not visiting the US National Holocaust museum. How many members of the Peoples Republic of China have signed in? Many other people haven't been. Does that make them Nazis who are responsible for the Holocaust? I, on the other hand, have been. Does that mean I am blessed by God? Are you actually saying that is now a crime against humanity to not visit a Holocaust Museum? You seem to be setting this up as some sort of moral imperative. I almost wish I hadn't gone now. You've sort of soured the whole experience for me. So tell me, DogOnPorch. Have you been to the US Holocaust Museum? Quick now. No Google. Where is it, exactly? The title of his book is spelled Among the Righteous. You cite the book as backup and cannot even be bothered to spell the title correctly. Here are some quotes from the reviews of the book on Amazon.com... You are right about Arab Nationalism seeing Zionism as a threat. Nothing new there, and one can marvel not that it is true, but that anybody would expect otherwise. As for Arab sentiments towards Jews, what do you think the sentiments in Canada would be towards Americans if they flew sorties at will into the country and bombed our nuclear reactors or invaded and killed thousands of people? On the one hand, you lot justify Israel's behaviour by saying "it's war" and then get apoplectic when there is a negative reaction. As Satloff says, Jews were always better off under the Moslems than the Christians, and that has only changed in modern history. As far as I am concerned, that is the baseline. If Israel was not so hell-bent on persecuting the Palestinians and driving them off of their land, and in following its "Iron Wall" strategy towards others in the region, that base state might once again be achievable. It certainly would not be given current Israeli policies. As for Rue's post, the whole issue of the Mufti and the Nazis was not a major driver of events during WWII and is even less relevant today. This is just more of the blame the victim strategy that Rue so doggedly persues. And no, I will not respond to posts which quote a site that announces "Welcome to the Third World of Appalachia". That quote from Surah is rich. I'll bet there are Arabs who quote the Old Testament with the same intentions as you are displaying here. You have entire (illegal) settlements of Israelis who are there because their occupants think God gave them the land and you quote the Qu'uran as though it were some sort absolute proof of your argument. Guys like you are no different than the Mullahs.

There's that ethnic cleansing thing again.

What can I say? This is a thread about border issues and the subject of Canada-based terrorists came up. You are trying to turn it into a thread about something else by the use of word play. Sophistry. Hasta la vista, baby.

Realistic demands to guys like you mean things like, "Oh golly. We don't care about the land under your settlements. We own it, but we didn't really need it. Why not give it to a family from Russia? How about a few Ethipians? Maybe an American or two? And we don't care about the roads that join them that we are not allowed to cross or use. We didn't need those either. In fact, why don't we all just move to Jordan. That's the ticket! We demand to move to Jordan!" Those are the kinds of demands you like, right?

Hilary Clinton had a good sound bite for situations like this: "Can I be quoted yawning?" When you can't win an argument, you can always fall back on sophistry, right?

Yeah. Axis of evil. I got that part. Which answer on Tibet?

You just haven't a clue, do you?

I can see that some people are upset about Palestinians wanting the Western Wall back. Would you be happier if all they asked for was the land they actually rightfully and legally own?

Well, how can I put this in terms that even you might understand. The thread is about border issues and as a part of that thread, the subject of terrorists originating in Canada came up. Ergo, posts about terrorists coming from Canada and CROSSING THE FUCKING BORDER would be relevant. Posts about terrorists, WHO DO NOT CROSS THE FUCKING BORDER, would not be relevant. DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND ME NOW?

Well as long as you say so ScottSA. How could I dare to ask for a parliamentary declaration? What was I thinking? By the way, ScottSA, a state of war has special legislative meaning and triggers a particular legislative framework. You were aware of that, right?

Interesting that you can do this sort of thing regarding Moslems but if you were to do it regarding another identifiable religious group or race, you'd be in big trouble. So Moxie, been to Markham lately? Whatever are we going to do about the yellow horde? Also interesting to note how many of those listed in the original post are Israelis. Certainly there are some extravagant references to turbans here. In fact turbans are mostly worn in South Asia. But why quibble over details? Oh, and Moxie. That would be European society rather than Europian society, would it not? As long as you have your turban wrapped right, I suppose....

Well you would believe that if you were a supporter of Israel. You would probably believe the corrollary if you were a supporter of Iran. There's the rub.

I love it. Patrick James Whelan, who was convicted and hanged for killing McGee, was never accused of being a Fenian by the Crown prosecutor. You appear to be the only one who is able to make the case. Evidence? And, a propos of the thread topic how many times did Whelan attack the US? The Doukhobors. The most terrifying thing about htem is that you might have to look at them naked. I mean these people need to lay off the pork fat and potatoes. In any case, how many times have they attacked the US? The FLQ. Yes, they were terrorists. But we are talking about terrorists coming from Canada and attacking the US, are we not? Makes your point kind of irrelevant, does it not? Ditto the Animal Liberation Front and anti-Abortion activists. This thread is about border issues, not internal acts of terrorism is it not?. Nose to the grindstone, Bush_Cheney2004. Please.

The way I read it is that if Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, we are gonna have world war III. And some are asking "Why Israel? Why not Tibet?" There you have it, JBG. You walked into that one, bud.