White Doors

Who started which war? The facts of history might well surprise you. Hezbollah started the war. What would be right is demanding Israel obey international law and desist from oppressing the Palestinians. They are not oppressing the Palestinians. Actually, Israel has expressed willingness, but SHOWN unwillingness. The policy of illegal settlement outside its borders alone is sufficient to disprove any real willingness to achieve a negotiated settlement. Basically, it looks like Israel really wants the Palestinians to die quietly and be forgotten by history. Really, they completely pulled out of Gaza and got rocket attacks for thanks.

Okay....if a heavy ice breaker can go through 4 ft of ice, are you saying a sub can punch through 10-15 ft of ice, which can be the thickness of pack ice? No, I'm saying that they can go underneath it. A lot of good that would do if there were mexican illegal immigrants on top of the ice........ What? It';s about asserting our sovereignty. You don't need to actually kill people to put good military kit to effective use. I do agree that they are down on the list, but they really make alot of sense for Canada. Oh, and the troop carriers are on the way. No more frigates I'm afraid, but there was talk about 2-3 more destroyer's.

I've heard a lot about "Taliban strongholds", usually from the media. Personally, I've always taken it to describe areas where there are lots of Taliban, where they have a support network in place and some local support and not in terms of fixed strongpoints on a battlefield. As for the staying and fleeing: that's usually the case when they are the one's being attacked and not the one's on the offensive. IOW, I'm not convinced they would suddenly adapt defensive tactics that play right into their enemy's strengths and negate theirs, especially when you consider that fixed defensive positions are a feature of western-style warfare, not the run and gun style of the Afghan tribes. But yet, that is exactly what they did during operation Medusa.

Okay....if a heavy ice breaker can go through 4 ft of ice, are you saying a sub can punch through 10-15 ft of ice, which can be the thickness of pack ice? No, I'm saying that they can go underneath it.

Nuclear powered subs is the only way we can properly enforce our arctic sovereignty. If any country needs them it's us. Our current subs and the subs that you cite cannot travel under ice pack for any significant time and as such are utterly useless to us. Long range patrol craft are better suited. They are cheaper and have a definate advantage over subs. They are fast and can go over water and land and cover 100 times the area in any given time. Sub have their purpose, but sovreignty enforcement ain't one of them. And if you insisted on a surface presence, then choose armed icebreakers...they at least can do something valuable while they patrol. Armed icebrakers can't go through thick ice, they can best go at the margins of the pack ice. N Subs aren't cheap, but they are the only real solution. Unfortunately, we have so many pressing needs in the military that these are at the bottom of the list. Those Diesel class one's from GB are garbage even if they didn't leak.

Fourth Geneva Convention - Section III: Occupied Territories, Article 49 (last sentence). Check it for yourself. I thought we were speaking about the war with Lebanon? Israel has shown willingness to negotiate land for peace. The problem is the 'peace' part. hard to negotiate with people who consider you to be monkey's.

Nuclear powered subs is the only way we can properly enforce our arctic sovereignty. If any country needs them it's us. Our current subs and the subs that you cite cannot travel under ice pack for any significant time and as such are utterly useless to us.

Agreed, except for the tank part. No RPG can take out our Leopard II's. It gives the troops protection and let's the taliban knwo that nothing they have can stop them. A good message to send in my opinion.

I think the GSt should go to 5% and then they should take a good long look at income taxes to make them more fair and so everyone pay's less. Income taxes are MUCH worse than consumption taxes.

No Canada took pains to remain 'neutral' in the past 20 years. Not 'always'. North Africa? Better consult a map. Geneve Conventions? What part of that did they violate?

I wouldn't call backing a democratically elected government defending it's citizens from murderour terrorists who started the war, 'taking sides'. Martin governed by Polls, look where that got him. Harper is standing up for what is right, not necessarily popular. Good for him.

Well, no. You say something like "We are investigating the matter and are expecting to come to a decision over the next few months...". What Flaherty did instead (on the occasion of Bell Canada announcing it would go to a trust structure) was to say "No comment". So yes. I am serious. And I appear to know more about how markets work than you do, newbie. So the markets will be sluggish for 4 months. Market's hate uncertainty. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. And newbie? I guess I should bow down to you that has been here for a whole 45 days? Sorry your lordship. my apologies.

The tax savings for seniors is a pittance compared to the income many of them have been generating from income trusts. If they had to do something, then their campaign promise obliges them to at the very least to signal a warning. This was sandbagging, pure and simple. There is also the question of whether this was the right thing to do. The idea of income trusts in the first place was to give small companies a leg up. They appear to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Signal a warning? Are you serious? You have no idea how the market's work do you? SHould they have sent the same 'warning' that Scott Brison sent to Bay Street last year and almost get charged with insider trading?

Layton is blowing hot air again. The Conservatives would be overjoyed if they were defeated on this motion. Although, is this a confidence type vote?