White Doors

How naive! The US will come to our assistance if it is in their best interests and will not come to our assistance if it is not in their best interests. The US stood by while Germany invaded Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and other countries. The US stood by while Germany bombed Great Britain and Churchill begged Roosevelt to step in and assist. The US stood by when Germany invaded Russia in June, 1941, and Stalin asked Roosevelt for help. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, the US declared war on Japan but still did not declare war on Germany. But Germany then declared war on the US to honour their treaty with Japan. That's when the US finally sent their military into Europe. The US will come to our assistance if it is in their best interests, not because we sacrificed Canadians in Afghanistan. So in your mind the Americans are damned if the do and are damned if they don't eh? Practice isolationsim, they are cowards. Practice interventionism they are murdering scumbags. In just what scenario is it that the Americans aren't the bad guys 8n your myopic little outlook on the world?

1. Right. The national interests of the UNITED STATES were involved, and our membership in an alliance led us to assist them in protecting THEIR national interests. I'm okay with that, but that doesn't make it OUR national interests. 2. The regime that threatened the national interests of our ally has been overthrown. Job well done. The rest of this 'mission' is a farce. The rest of the mssion is the most important part. It is apparent you have a very juvenile understanding of the situaiton.

I too am glad that fellow citizens will put their lives at risk to maintain Canadian values. What does that have to do with Afghanistan? The current Islamic Republic of Afghanistan recognizes the Koran as being supreme over any other legislation and for this reason it's perfectly legal for them to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity. What Canadian values are being protected by Canadians dying for an Islamic theocracy? The fact that the Harper Conservatives and a handful of Liberals voted to extend the mission doesn't make it right. Funny that the vast majority of the Afghan's themselves disgaree with you. Evidence? Not thta it will change your narrow little mind, but here you go. A brand new one to boot! http://65.109.167.118/pipa/articles/home_p...55&lb=hmpg1

I too am glad that fellow citizens will put their lives at risk to maintain Canadian values. What does that have to do with Afghanistan? The current Islamic Republic of Afghanistan recognizes the Koran as being supreme over any other legislation and for this reason it's perfectly legal for them to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity. What Canadian values are being protected by Canadians dying for an Islamic theocracy? The fact that the Harper Conservatives and a handful of Liberals voted to extend the mission doesn't make it right. Funny that the vast majority of the Afghan's themselves disgaree with you. This is also a UN mandated war. Under what circumstances do you believe that Canada should go to war to help others? Or do you believe that Peace is simply the absence of war?

Much of the fighting was also done by foreigners in the Afghan war with the Soviets. It contributed to the Soviets withdrawing as it will contribute ultimately to Canada withdrawing. Are you saying it's a religious duty to rout Godless Communists but not Christians? Christianity is not exactly well-respected in Afghanistan. Have you forgotten that it was the current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that initially sentenced a man to be exceuted for converting to Christianity? And this is the supposed anti-Taliban government that Canadians are dying for. You might want your children dying to protect an Islamic theocracy. I don't. But you are forgetting (conveniently) that polls have shown that the Afghan's want the Soldiers there. The same polls also show that they would vote Karzai in again with a majority. Are you uneducated about the situation or are you hoping that Canada loses? These are questions that you might want to ask yourself.

Not only is the idea stupid but given the current labour market, this proposal is vaguely ridiculous. Unemployment is the lowest it has been in 30 years and in all likelihood it will just fall further.BTW, federal minimum wage regulations affect a very small number of people in Canada. Well said. I read thta this would only affect the 8% of companies who are regulated federally. The vast majority are regulated provincially.

I was being facetious my friend. oops. my mistake.

Volunteering at a rate higher per capita than Ontario. I don't know if that's precisely accurate. The Quebec City recruitment office has done well. Perhaps Dobbin you have another source: R-CI suspect that recruitment follows regional unemployment rates. --- Incidentally, you can see the new recruitment . Some great videos on there too of Canadian troops making us proud on the ground.

Wow. I can't believe that the NDP opposed this.

Holy smokes. It is a CLEAN AIR ACT. It has nothing to do with the oceans. I do agree the Oceans need to be looked at. But you are citing the wrong thig here. Also, the clean air act will do more to stop toxic pollutants in our air than anything under Kyoto.

The United States is spending 25% less on this conflict than they did in Bosnia. They expect to win the peace with that lack of commitment? NATO isn't really interested in fighting this battle and the enemy hides behind Pakistan. Canada is being left to fend out on the front. It's a war. You are suprised that there are problems? It does not take away from the legitimacy and righteousness of this conflict. We owe it to the Afghan people and by extension, do a service to civilization everywhere.

Well, that certainly sounds like the most cynical of pandering imaginable. You imply he doesn't care about the issue and will hold the vote with the intention of losing it. Why then, hold the vote at all if not to pander to those who want to beat the issue a little bit more. The responsible thing to do would be to admit the issue has been settled and move on without any further nonsense. he does care about the issue. He wants a free vote in parliament. It's the principle of how the liberals did it, of which he has as much stated himself many times.

Then surely it shouldn't be too hard to produce a link or something. Well you can start here. One of many. http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_Newpolicy.htm You can also google the Senate report on the present and future of Canada's armed forces that calls for a dramatic increase in defence spending.

Terroritorial waters are only 22km wide. If you use Google Earth you can see that the are many places where the straits are 100km+ wide which means the straits are not within Canada's territorial waters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Waters That said, all archipelagic waters within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state like Indonesia or the Philippines are also considered territorial waters. But Canada is not an archipelagic state so the US can try to claim that the archipelagic state rules do not apply. Bottom line: from a strictly legal perspective Canada's claim is not air tight. From a moral perspective it is indisputable. Nope, not air tight at all. The bottelnecks are all less than 22kms though. Increased Military presence will help our claim. Our claim...has been challenged by the US. The US doesn't recognise IC decisions against them, what are we going to do? Invade and make a regime change? Yes, that is exactyl what I'm saying.

So we add an icebreaker or two (which, if I'm not mistaken, is in the cards). But I remain unconvinced that drastic or even a significant increase in spending is neccesary. Well the think tanks that study these things vehemently disagree with you.

Terroritorial waters are only 22km wide. If you use Google Earth you can see that the are many places where the straits are 100km+ wide which means the straits are not within Canada's territorial waters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Waters That said, all archipelagic waters within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state like Indonesia or the Philippines are also considered territorial waters. But Canada is not an archipelagic state so the US can try to claim that the archipelagic state rules do not apply. Bottom line: from a strictly legal perspective Canada's claim is not air tight. From a moral perspective it is indisputable. Nope, not air tight at all. The bottelnecks are all less than 22kms though. Increased Military presence will help our claim.

Well first, I'd like to see some proof of that claim. Second, how would ramping up our military spending improve our position WRT our claim? Take it up with U.S.A. which is claiming the passage is an international strait. And, since the U.S is the key party disputing our claim, do you think that military force would be decisive in advancing our claim? So far, all you've done is tossed out issues without any indication of how boosting military spending would help resolve them. Here is s decent backgrounder for you: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/arctic.html If we can't calim that we patrol and control it now, our case is much weaker in international court. You patrol and control it with a military presence.

Here is a map of the Northwest passage: http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm

Overstate much? We have a territorial dispute over Denmark over one solitary desolate island. Not the kind of thing that signals a great danger to the dominion. Canada's claim over the northwest passage has always been contentious (as is the claim that it runs throuh our territory). like the Hans Island business, the solution doesn't lie in force of arms. Indeed, it would take only a very modest increase in capability to have an effect on our ability to project ourselves into the north. As for the strain Afghanistan is putting on our forces, well, maybe that's something our government should have considered before dispatching them there. Certainly, that's an argument for a better defined role for our forces, not more spending necessarily. You are not looking at the issues very closely, that is very apparent. That 'desolate island' carry's with it territory of some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. Seem inconsequential to you now? How could the claim that the northwest passage runs through our territory be contentious? Do you even know where the route runs? In my estimation there is no point where the passage is more than 50 miles from Canadian land and over 2/3rds of the route is bordered by Canadian territory on BOTH sides. Clearly you are over your head here.

And Luxembourg has such a quality military, right? Per capita spending is not a accurate measure of a military's quality. Can you give me some concrete examples of how military power improves the global standing of a middle power like Canada? We're a century removed from Teddy Roosevet's utterance and the world has changed a fair bit since then. What's more, using concerns over prestige to justify military spenduing can lead to all kinds of ridiculous purchases (I'm thinking of Imperial Germany's massive pre WWI naval build up, motivated by the desire to compete with Britain . Of course when war finally came, they couldn't bear to risk their precious fleet in action, so it sat in harbour for most of the conflict.) I don't particularily care. In fact I find this Canadian trait of agonizing over what the cool kids are saying to be most unseemly. I'd be happy if we were Sweden. That's idealogical/political problem that can't be solved or addressed my military means alone. That I will agree with. Again: we're 12th world wide in military spending, ahead of Spain, Australia and Israel, ferchrissakes. That's a lot of dosh. Okay: why? Does Canada face any sinificant threats to its territory? Is Canada without allies and thus recquires a large military to defend itself? Are we maintaining an overseas empire? No? No? No? So please: back your statement up. Yes we do. We are in danger of losing our arctic lands to Denmark for Chrissakes. The Northwest passage is in danger of being deemed international waters despite it going right through our territory. Our Soldiers in Afghanistan are having to do 2-3 tours to keep our small contribution of 2300 troops there until 2009. You think any of that is healthy? No one else does. One lonely Island is jardly the entire arctic.....and I doubt Denmark is in any position to defend their dubious claim strongly. Besides, if it does come to blows, two democracies wil fight that war in court. Of course they will fight it in court. But ask your self: What will be the main assertion in who wins? it will be looked at who most closely asserted their sovereignty. That's done with military capability and presence.

According to whose perceptions? The Israelis constantly view themselves as being under threat. They probably think they are under threat from Zulus waving spears. Everybody threatens them. All the time. Whenever they need to attack someone, they come up with a threat. Is this 'proof' that Israel's do this or is this 'proof' of your anti-jewish agenda?

Substitue 'pre-emptive' with 'unprovoked'. Get the picture? ok... Not sure about the rest of the people here, but that doesn't make much sense to me. You also conveniently forgot to refute my claim on the 1967 war. I will take that as a white flag raised and waved.

And Luxembourg has such a quality military, right? Per capita spending is not a accurate measure of a military's quality. Can you give me some concrete examples of how military power improves the global standing of a middle power like Canada? We're a century removed from Teddy Roosevet's utterance and the world has changed a fair bit since then. What's more, using concerns over prestige to justify military spenduing can lead to all kinds of ridiculous purchases (I'm thinking of Imperial Germany's massive pre WWI naval build up, motivated by the desire to compete with Britain . Of course when war finally came, they couldn't bear to risk their precious fleet in action, so it sat in harbour for most of the conflict.) I don't particularily care. In fact I find this Canadian trait of agonizing over what the cool kids are saying to be most unseemly. I'd be happy if we were Sweden. That's idealogical/political problem that can't be solved or addressed my military means alone. That I will agree with. Again: we're 12th world wide in military spending, ahead of Spain, Australia and Israel, ferchrissakes. That's a lot of dosh. Okay: why? Does Canada face any sinificant threats to its territory? Is Canada without allies and thus recquires a large military to defend itself? Are we maintaining an overseas empire? No? No? No? So please: back your statement up. Yes we do. We are in danger of losing our arctic lands to Denmark for Chrissakes. The Northwest passage is in danger of being deemed international waters despite it going right through our territory. Our Soldiers in Afghanistan are having to do 2-3 tours to keep our small contribution of 2300 troops there until 2009. You think any of that is healthy? No one else does.

Depends on what you mean by "take notice". Mein Kampf is filled with histrionic rationalization and delusional motivation for the ultimate annihiliation of a people just as the current Hamas government of Palestine rationalizes why an entire country should have no right to exist. Appeasement was the wrong approach in 1938. It still is. Mein Kampf is delusional drivel. Hamas' resistance to Israel is a rationally comprehensible interpretation of historical events. They view the imposition of the state of Israel in Palestine in 1948 as a wrongful act. No sound reason has been given for them to change their view on that, and so they continue holding that position. Delusional drivel to you but it was embraced and eagerly read by a nation which used it to rationalize murderous behaviour and invasions of others' territories. It is delusional if not hallucinatory for Hamas, after the nation of Israel has legally existed for multiple generations and 58 years, to claim that the same nation should not exist. Fatah understood this but the Palestinians have chosen to be governed by Hamas. No so coincidentally, Mein Kampf has been a best seller is aramaic for a few years. You have to understand your enemy.

Holding them to account for their actions will change the facts. Appeasement doesn't work. A quick study of history will show you this. It is plain and simple.