stazy

Exactly how does society's elite benefit from a WWW III?

Is PolyNewbie seriously considered a poster who has anything of substance to offer the forum?

Well obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but I clearly disagree. At any rate, I think one's perception of what it means to be Canadian is directly related to how you view the United States. You're either trying to prove that being Canadian is entirely different than being American, or you're trying to prove how similar Canadians are to Americans.

Being Canadian means being as close to an American as possible, without actually being American.

Who would have thought it possible for one person to believe in every political conspiracy ever created? It is seriously making me wonder if polynewbie is an elaborate troll who's toying will all of us. Source? hahaha. Good one. Prove it.

Now that has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum... I had a futile discussion with someone on another forum who utterly denied that Bush linked Iraq to 911 and Al Qaeda. If you want to read absurd statements, I suggest you check out the 911 is an insider job thread...

Thank you for the link. Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think most everyone would agree that a stable Iraq would benefit the Republicans more than the Democrats going into the election. Now that has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum Jenny, I think the way in which I've characterized an occupation and how I've applied my definition is reasonably fair. Please show me where I'm wrong. Impressive. You ask for my opinion and then you answer your own question. At any rate, we all have something to gain from a stable Iraq, and at this point, I think that is what America is trying to accomplish. I'm not denying the fact that some American corporations will benefit financially from a democratic Iraq, but I doubt that was their original reason for going to war in the first place.

Is this really the best you can do? The trend is the good news, not the number of deaths. Obviously any casualty is unfortunate, no one is debating that. The term "occupation" suggests the offending party (in this case, America) has control over the region in which they are present (militarily and politically). This is certainly not the case in Iraq. Make no mistake about it, they are fighting a war. Nazis occupied Poland. America is not occupying Iraq. This statement is intelectually sluggish. Firstly, American soldiers are not kids. They are adults who have made a career choice to join the US Army. What's is more, they have not died for "nothing". Wether you believe they are bringing democracy to Iraq or are securing America's energy needs, their deaths are not in vain. According to this blog, the average age of soldiers who die in Iraq is around 30 years of age.

I never said Iraq was stable. I said decreased troop fatalities suggests increased stability. I view stability as a continuum, not a black and white state of being. I was not aware of the "breaking point" analysis. I'll be paying attention to see how that plays out. Can you provide me with a link on this? I am not "Bush cheerleading", I'm reporting good news and providing my input on it. Viewing it as anything else is to confuse modest optimism with blind political affiliation.

They haven't been shown any evidence that suggests success is a possibility. A decreasing death toll is not a victory in itself, but rather an indicator of increased stability and improved troop effectiveness. If positive news continues to make its way back home, that might be enough to give America the staying power it needs to finish off the job, as opposed to an untimely withdrawl. As per your poll, the 1% difference is certainly within the statistical margin of error.

This is great news, but disasterous for the Democrats if the trend continues. Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers

Perhaps it wasn't out of control, but it was certainly unscrupulous and misdirected; especially in the Liberal's last few years in power.

These types of statements are baseless. Politicians are too smart to hand over their power. Furthermore, globalization has been around forever and borders still exist. How do you expect it to abolish borders in the future.

Techniquelly the Conservatives haven't spent a penny. The $10B or so Harper has given away this week is to be in the next budget. However, what are the chances of this budget actually passing? I'm guessing it's not very high. These spending promises are meant to buy votes and probably won't ever be realized. If the Conservatives win a minority, they won't have to re-commit the $10B because it was part of a budget that triggered an election (This would actually make them look good). On the other hand, if the Conservatives manage to win a majority, then there are several excuses they can employ to defer their spending promises. And of course, there is always the possibility that Harper may lose the upcoming election...

Small block? It's 2% of the population. How many voters does Harper need to get to majority territory? Supporting farmers is a win-win situation for the government. Not only do they buy the rural vote, but they improve their image nationally as a government that sticks up for the little guy. (Of course this doesn't apply to all persons, but generally speaking I think it holds true). Harper must be careful not to let these spending promises get out of control though. He may soon start to appear out of control if these billion dollar giveaways continue. Perhaps he's daring the opposition to bring down the government?