Moonlight Graham

What you said here is kind of frightening, don't you think? Ya its a war & they are the enemies, but they are also surrounded by millions of innocent civilians. The gov't (and thus by extention the military also) works for us, they represent our will. We, the ordinary citizens, should decide when to go to war & when not to go to war. We do this through our elected representives. And though you may not like it, anti-war supporters have as much say as the pro-war supporters. And history has shown that sometimes the anti-war supporters have been right. Obviously we need to leave the day-to-day operations and & general strategies up to the military, but we must also also have a say in what our military does, ie: which wars it fights & the basic behaviour/rules they must follow (ie: Geneva Conventions & other human rights issues). I'm sure there are a few generals who, if left unchecked & able to do whatever they wanted, would just carpet bomb the hell out of Afghanistan in order to get the job done quickly & easily with little regard for civilians & infastructure. I agree, most of us have no idea how to fight & win a war, but we do know right from wrong. That's why i think its a great idea the media is in there, so they can keep our military (and gov't) honest, not to mention send the pictures & stories of war back home so we all aren't living in our la-la land bubbles & we can see ourselves the true impact of war.

I used to believe in it, but "multiculturalism" is a sham. You can keep your religious beliefs etc., but you must also assimiliate into Canadian culture. Immigrants & new Canadian citizens should be made to learn english or french, not encouraged to keep to their own kind. This is Canada, not an airport terminal. There also has to be more Canadian history taught in our schools.

Do you not think NATO/U.S. has wanted dearly to enter Pakistan? Access denied, even under the leadership of the U.S.'s dear friend - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf...who (as i just mentioned above) has just recently resigned as President under impeachment charges. There's just no freaking way we're going to be allowed to start a war within Pakistan.

How do we finish it? Al-Qaeda & the Taliban have safe haven in Pakistan. The U.S.'s numbero uno ally in Pakistan, (former) President Pervez Musharraf, just resigned under threats of impeachment. The very powerful ISI in Pakistan has been playing both sides with the U.S./NATO during this war & almost certainly have no intention of allowing NATO to enter Pakistan to combat Al-Qaeda/Taliban. Furthermore, you cannot defeat an international ideology with carpet bombs. Even if Afghanistan is a "success", anti-West terrorism will still remain in a massive way. Al-Qaeda did not even originate from Afghanistan, it was mostly used as a safe haven & training ground out of neccessity. Bin Laden is a Saudi. Of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, 15 of them were Saudi Arabian. None of them were Afghani's, none of them members of the Taliban. In all logic, the U.S. should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. But of course Bush & Co. would never attack their best buddies, but they would be dumb enough to start such a war.

Leave. What we're doing in Afghanistan is the exact reason why Al-Qaeda et al. wanted to kill us in the first place. What we're doing is asinine, not to mention illogical. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

True enough. But after Katrina, i don't blame them at all.

The whole "elitist" thing is dumb. I would WANT the President to be an elitist. I WANT him to be the best & brightest the country has to offer, and by being so i'd assume he'd have gone to some great schools & in his life has been relatively financially successful (successful lawyers & businessmen etc. usually are). As long as he isn't completely out of touch with reality, owning 7 houses is fine. I wouldn't want the President to have 1st-hand experience of the morgage crisis. I would think the freaking President of the United States should at least know how to properly manage his money & assets.

Sadly, despite your huge Republican bias, i have to agree with you. I'm disappointed in Obama, he could be so much more. But he just plays the smooth political games like everyone else. But he's still lightyears better than McCain.

I don't give a hoot how many houses McCain or Obama has. What matters are the issues, and what each candidates' stance is on them. It makes for funny soundbites i totally admit, but in the end who gives a rat's behind that McCain has 7 houses & Obama has 1 yada yada. Yet all the major media TV outlets have this as their #1 story tonight. Which just goes to show that this kind of thing DOES influence people's vote, which is pathetic proof of how moronic & uninformed the majority of Americans and Canadians are. ...almost as stupid as Clinton supporters voting for McCain instead of Barack "the black male Hillary" Obama.

From Matthewgood.org: Here's a link to the Gorbachev Op-Ed.

The U.S. Missile Shield is a stupid idea & a vast waste of resources. It is designed to defend against nuclear missile threats from rogue states. Ok, now exactly how many "rogue states" have nuclear missile strike capabilities? Maybe North Korea, if it keeps up its program. Thats about it. Iran doesn't even have the capability yet, and even if they did i'm pretty sure the 'ol "if you bomb us we'll bomb you" philosophy from the cold war would keep them in check, as it did with the U.S. & the USSR for 50+ years. Pakistan is a Muslim nation, and they have yet to go nuclear wacko on anyone. Iran is run by a bunch of jerks, but they aren't completely idiotic/suicidal jerks.As for terrorist groups, they are almost certain to detonate a nuclear device within the target country itself & not by a sophisticated launched missile strike.

Before Harper was PM, the Canadian military was an atrophied piece of bunk in need of some TLC. I don't think our military needs to be greatly expanded. I just believe it needs to be sufficient & actually, ahem, functional. It has had more funding by the Conservatives, although i don't like how they've been using it (ie: Afghanistan). Canada needs the basic ability to defend its sovereignty and be able to properly defend its borders while also able to respond to most any domestic crisis. This doesn't mean we need to load up on fleets of F-22's. We just can't have our helicopters crashing into the ocean and we need to have the ability to transport our own troops with our own vehicles. When it comes to arctic sovereignty, we don't need a big aramada of battleships to defend against the Russians. I'm quite sure most of our western allies would want the arctic & its resources to be in the hands of Canada and not Russia, and would be willing to give us a bit of hand if Russia does become militarily aggressive. Yay for NATO!

Depends on who the murderer is. (ie: the gov't).

The bias against Russia in the Western media regarding the whole Georgia/Ossetia/Russia conflict is astounding. Russia deserves some blame for attacking Georgia with such ferocity, but the western media rarely brings up the fact that Georgia attacked South Ossetia first, a day after they had both agreed to a ceasefire. Using the ceasefire to launch a suprise attack was very cowardly on Georgia's part, yet how aften is this mentioned compared to stories of "the re-awaking of the evil Russian bear!!"? IMO Russia & Georgia have both acted like a-holes, but Russia just has the bigger guns (and sexier media headline).

A professional liar (aka politician) cheating on his wife? And a Democrat at that? What news!!

The Hilton/Spears ad is utter trash. I was suprised the 1st time i saw it on TV that McCain actually endorsed this pile of rubbish. He should be ashamed of this ad. Yet another politician who will throw his credibility out the window for some votes.

He's right. If it was only 1 fixed term, everyone would lie to get in office and they would have little reason to keep the promises because they won't have to run again. I'd like to see a cap on the # of years an individual can be Prime Minister though. Like 10 or something. The PM has a massive amount of power in the Canadian gov't, especially compared to the U.S. president vs the rest of the U.S. gov. anyways this is in the wrong forum

I agree with you there. I remember the protests in all the U.S. cities before the war being televised on TV. Protestors had a decent say. Not sparkling, and i do believe that actual journalists/media types were discouraged from speaking out on the war (ie: Phil Donahue). But at least they covered the public outcries. The real problem with the mainsteam media over the war is they have failed to inform & remind the general public on all of the lies perpetrated by the Bush admin. PBS had a bit of coverage (Frontline, Bill Moyers), and MSNBC had Chris Matthews & Keith Olbermann. However, you've never seen Wolf Blitzer run a tape of all the pre-war instances members of the Bush admin mentioned Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda. And what portion of the public knows who "curveball" is? The MSM lets the admin say everything they want to say to spread their message, but a small portion actually calls them on it when it turns out to be B.S. The only thing you see on CNN is the occasional "mission accomplished" reference or the subtle Jack Cafferty anti-Bush quip. Most of the Bush B.S. info the public knows is from a freakin' Michael Moore movie!! Ridiculas! Its amazing the % of Americans who sill think Saddam has links to Al-Qaeda, or the % that think he was in someway responsible for 9/11. We shouldn't have to do this much digging to get the real story. Media failure!

Most media isn't like reading Associated Press news snippets. There's always going to some bias no matter the media outlet, people are only human. But some are more worse than others & are more intentional than others. However it isn't illegal for a media outlet to have bias or a politcal agenda. Free speech is the law the U.S., so while it can be very annoying i don't have a huge problem with it. One's best bet is simply to get one's news from several different media sources.

You don't think there were a fair amount of Americans living/working/visiting overseas in those crowds?

Overall, this trip i believe has helped Obama more than it has hurt him.

Regarding the cartoon, its funny if put into the right context. It should have had a title blurb on the cover to explain it, like "Myths about Obama" or something. Personally i would have put it inside the magazine next to an article about the myths. The New Yorker can print just about whatever they want, the Constitution garuantees that, and while it was a smart move financially for the mag it was a bit of a poor move journalistically.

I really hope you are being sarcastic. Please say you dont believe this.

Wow i'm suprised McCain would say that. Good to hear.

I'm hungry for a competent party that i'd actually be somewhat enthusiastic about voting for instead of these bunches of fools.