segnosaur

There is nothing illegal about occupying a territory that has been captured in a defensive war. And there is nothing illegal about taking action to ensure a country's safety and security. Rather simplistic argument that doesn't necessarily stand up to scrutiny. There have been people that have had significant poverty for years that have not resorted to terrorist attacks. And it should be noted that the terrorists who were involved in 9/11 did not necessarily come from 'poor' families... many were from the middle or upper classes. In my opinion the bigger factor in encouraging terrorism is freedom of speech... if individuals are constantly exposed to only a single message and have no method of peaceful dissent, then violent reactions are more likely. Sadly, such freedoms are often lacking in the Arab world, including Palestine, where some of the first acts of Hamas were to restrict freedom of the press, and where children are exposed to Sessame street type characters that encourage them to kill Israelis.

Just because the average westerner isn't willing to engage in suicide attacks does not mean that 'we believe in nothing' or that we are 'selfish'. Indeed, remember, many such suicide attacks are religiously motivated, with the promise of '72 virgins' in the afterlife. To me, that sounds a bit selfish. Commitment is not always bad... commitment to a screwed up ideal based on some bizarre fantasy that allows you to be manipulated pretty much always is bad.

Actually, yes they have. The Institute for Science and International Security (run by one of the former heads of IAEA) has published a paper where they have outlined multiple violations going back several decades, including: - Undeclared importation of uranium in 1991, 1993, etc. - Failure to declare various enrichment experiments in 1999 - Performed work with plutonium prior to 1993 (see: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/ir...violations.pdf) Yes, it is true that NOW Iran has admitted to breaching the NPT and may be acting honestly, but its past actions should give concerns about just how compliant they are. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Why do you say that? Probably because of the substantial oil deposits that Iran has. The problem is, the way Iran is going about its nuclear program (enriching its own uranium, which means that some material could be used for military as well as civilian purposes) coupled with past NPT violations and statements about 'wiping Israel off the map' should make people cautious. If Iran were really and truly interested in nuclear power for civilian uses, it has a few options: - Use uranium that has been enriched by other countries. I'm sure France or Russia would be pleased to sell them pre-enriched uranium) - Use a reactor design (such as CANDU) which does not require enriched uranium

There has never been an extended period of time when Israel has not been subject to threats, either from conventional militaries (from Syria, Egypt, etc.) or from terrorists. Of course they have no reason to unilaterally grant a palistinian state under attack (or threats of attack). this is a silly argument so i'm not sure why you're bringing it up. I'm bringing it up because its relevant and the facts support it... and because you seem to be ignorant of said facts... Something you seem to not understand ... not all Palistinians and Arabs want a 2 state solution with a recognized Israel. Believe it or not. there are a significant number of terrorsts who are not just 'fighting the occupation', but who believe Israel should be destroyed. Eliminated. Wiped off the map. These are not people just fighting the occupation, but these are people fighting to turn all of the area (from the West bank all the way to the sea) into one Arab state. And those people control the government of Gaza. Or did you not know that the founding charter of Hamas (you know, the guys that are in charge of Gaza). See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5016012.stm Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, committed to establishing an Islamic state in the whole of what it terms Palestine (post-1948 Israel, the West Bank and Gaza). You know, the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are the one main thing Israel has done wrong and which may be illegal. But here's the thing: Israel has already removed its settlements from Gaza. Unilaterally. Not much that the people in Gaza can complain about. As for the other settlements... Israel has taken action to dismantle settlements in the past (e.g. in the Sinai).... no reason to suspect that they wouldn't do so in the future if appropriate agreements are made. You know, so many anti-Israelis like th blame the temple mount visit as some sort of justification or way to absolve Palistinians of their guilt regarding the violence. Unfortunately, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Frankly, it just comes off as a flimsy excuse to blame the Jooossss. The situation was already violent before the visit to the temple mount. (For example, one soldier was killed the day before the visit...) whatever.. 10 years ago. 15 years ago. it doesn't change the fact that it has only killed 28 people in 8 years. whereas over 350 palestinian children have been killed in the last 2 weeks. Well, if your argument that Israel is wrong because not enough people have died to justify the invasion, then that's a totally different issue. To that, I have to repeat: Any country should have, as its priority, the protection of its own citizens. And I've noticed you totally ignored the fact that before the rocket attacks, there were suicide bombings. Both the rocket attacks, and the suicide bombings, were directed at civilians. Ummm.... no. Look up the definition of a 'chapter 6' resolution. All you are doing is illustrating your ignorance in the matter. Wikipedia has a fairly good desription of what these types of resolutions mean... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VI_of...Nations_Charter This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII. Because. it is so very common for people opposed to Israel to just shout 'resolutoin 242', without understanding A: what exactly is in the text of the resolution, and B: what exactly the significance of that type of resolution is. Ummmm.... here's a suggestion... go back and actually READ the resolution.... It specifically says: Termination of all claims or states of belligerence by and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area The 2 most important parts of that above sentence... - It specifically mentions every state. That includes Syria (who was involved in an attack against Israel and initially rejected 242 and did not acknowledge Israel's right to exist), Lebanon (used as a launch point for rockets aimed at Israel) Iraq (a middle eastern state who, until Saddam was deposed, was financially supporting suicide bombers), and Iran (a state that is helping to arm Hamas). Not enough just to get the Palestinians on side... ALL countries must be on board - It includes the term 'belligerance'. Its not enough to just accept Israel's right to exist... action must be taken to actually prevent violence aimed at Israel. The Oslo accords were signed in 1993, around which Arafat supposedly accepted Israel's right to exist. In the first 6 months of the following year, over a dozen Israelis were killed in various terrorist actions. (It is true that many of those attacks were not done by Arafat's organizaiton, but as the leader of the Palistinian government, it was his duty to provide security.) That's good. Because from the looks of things, you have a heck of a lot to learn yourself. Actually, I have studied them. I challenged you to point out exactly what law they're violating. Simply quoting a reference that has many laws is not identifying any specific violation. (As I've said before, there's really only one area that Israel might be seen as actually violating International laws regarding occupation.)

Didn't miss that part at all. Maybe YOU missed the part where I pointed out that any country would be foolish to accept a proposal that would give up land but not do anything to actually guarantee security. Read the resolution... It has the following 2 points in it: 1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine; 2. Urges all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination. Nowhere does it refer to Israeli security, nor does it have anything about Palestinians having to prevent attacks against Israeli territory. As you said, talk is cheap, especially when it comes from someone like Arafat. Keep in mind that while Arafat did 'officially' recognize Israel's right to exist, his movement continued to engage in terrorist attacks. And before that, there were suicide bombings. Edited to add: Actually, the first rocket attacks started in 2001... believe it or not, that's more than 5 years ago. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/0...east/index.html Looks like you've been doing some cut and paste there, without really understanding what you're talking about. I guess I need to explain a little about U.N. security council resolutions to you. There are 2 types of resolutions that can be passed... chapter 6 and chapter 7. Chapter 7 are the serious ones... they are considered 'binding', and can result in actual U.N. action. Chapter 6 resolutions (including 242) are considered only guidelines... they are not binding. So, Israel is under no requirement to follow it. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, 242 actually has multiple parts. It has the following requirements: 1) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; 2) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area You see, the problem is, people like you always get stuck on part 1. However, part 2 also must be respected, and that part applies to all countries that were involved in the conflict, not just Israel. And to this date, some countries in the region do not recognize the right of Israel to exist. Israel is under no obligation to unilaterally follow the resolution, while countries like Syria (whom also is covered by this resolution) refuse to do its part. The resolution must be implemented multilaterally or not at all. Which 'rules of occupation' are those? Is your understanding of the 'rules of occupation' any better than your understanding of U.N. resolutions? Or are you going to simply regurgitate something you've seen on an anti-Israeli web site? (edited to add: There is one thing Israel is doing which may be against the rules of occupation, but I'll see if you can figure it out.)

First of all, if you read the article you referenced, states: The manifesto appears to commit Hamas to a position that has been hinted at by its leadership over the past few years, namely an armed struggle to regain land lost in the 1967 Six Day War to form a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. The issue of land lost in 1948 with the creation of Israel would then be dealt with by future generations of Hamas leadership. The group's founding charter remains unchanged, predicting that Israel will suffer the same fate as the Crusader kingdoms in the Holy Land in the Middle Ages. So, from the sounds of it, Hamas isn't necessarily saying that it recognizes the right of Israel to exist; instead, it looks like its trying to eliminate Israel in stages... first of all, to set up a separate country, and THEN to take the rest of Israel. So instead of a one step conquest, they do it in 2 steps. Secondly, its hard to take this as proof of Hamas being significantly less radical when they willfully broadcast the children's television show "Tomorrow's Pioneers", which has such dialog as "You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_Pioneers

their mantra is not much different than the israeli government's, which is to never allow a palestinian state. Actually, that's not the Israeli government position at all. But thanks for playing. Here's a statement made by the UN regarding the Israeli position: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/c25aba03f...33;OpenDocument The representative of Israel said her Government fully supported the aspirations of the Palestinian people in achieving self-determination, but noted that it could only be realized by achieving a two-State solution, with a Jewish homeland of Israel alongside a Palestinian homeland....Other Israeli leaders further affirmed that a prosperous, viable Palestinian State was in Israel's own interest....She said that, while her Government was prepared to pursue that goal, the Palestinian people must also simultaneously accept the existence of an Israeli homeland for Jewish people. I'm sure any such bills have been shut down. That's because while the government (and likely most of Israel) wants Palestinians to have their own state, they also have a duty to protect Israeli lives. Making an independent Palestine while they are under threat of rocket attacks (as they have been for a long, long time) seems like a rather stupid thing to do. So any bill that says 'give Palestine a homeland' should be shut down until Israel knows that any Palestinian government will ensure peace, and not let its territory be used to launch terrorist attacks. Well, you'd think that Palestinians would realized 'Launch a rocket, get attacked in retaliation' would make at least some realize that taking the first step of launching the rocket would be a "bad idea". Just out of curiosity, what 'international law' have they been violating?

I think that both sources are biased. It's about the type of information that they produce. Photos, videos, well-researched articles: These are things that stand on their own. Except the problem is, the 'intifada' reference you made for was not well-researched, and certainly did not 'stand on their own'. In fact, material in it was actually contradicted by members of the ISM who were actually there. Yet you quoted their stuff like it was a respectable news source. Oh, by the way, several times you've accused Israel of taking actions to affect journalists in the area. Did you ever think that perhaps much (even the majority of the problem) may be due to actions by the Palestinians themselves (and Hamas in particular)? From : http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25440 The 750 people who worked at the national Palestine Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) TV station in Gaza could not do their jobs after Hamas barred them from the building as soon as it seized power on 14 June. ... In August, the Islamist leaders said they would apply a 1995 law providing for imprisonment for publication of any news liable to “endanger national unity or incite crime, hatred, division or religious disputes.” This was to discourage journalists from reporting “negative” news about the Hamas police.... Hamas also shut down the Gaza branch of the journalists’ union after it criticised the Hamas crackdown on the media. ... No foreign reporters are now based in the Gaza Strip, as a result of the 12 March 2007 kidnapping of BBC reporter Alan Johnston and his nearly four-month imprisonment by one of the Strip’s most powerful factions. I guess freedom of the press is only an issue when people think Israel is the culprit.

How about the fact that there is a rather large proportion of individuals in the Palistinian (and Arab) world who want Israel eliminated, and unlike western societies where people proposing such destruction are marginalized, in Palestine they often enjoy widespread support. Sure, if you are assuming the justification that 'Israel exists at all' is a valid one. It did? Strange.... even if you look on Wikipedia, you'll see the number of attacks (including both rockets and morter attacks) rising, from 2005 (long before the blockade) until 2008... Don't see much evidence that there was ever any sort of 'peace' from the palestinian side. You know, I COULD actually ask you to provide proof of this... after all, your claims have so far shown plenty of ignorance on your part. (Rachel Corrie and her famous megaphone being a prime example). However, even if Hamas did 'condem' the people launching the attacks, they did not effectively stop the attacks. Sorry if the Israelis don't want to die. Would that constitute 'living up to the bargin'?. I'm assuming that continued rocket attacks on civilian areas are acceptable to you by the Palestinians. Israelis who seek the expulsion/extermination of the Palistinians are in a tiny minority and are marginalized. Palestinians who call for the open destruction of Israel and the death of Jews enjoy widespread support. And you call the Israelis 'greedy'? Ah yes, the whole "we were trying, just never got around it" defense. Lets see... Israel began attacking Gaza at the end of December. In the month prior to the attack, there were over a hundred rockets fired from Gaza. During the time when there was supposedly a cease fire, over 300 rockets were fired at Israel from Gaza. Yup, Hamas was doing a bang-up job stopping the attacks. Just have to get over that whole "We want Israel destroyed" that's actually part of the Hamas charter. Actually, it is you that are fooled by the whole 'poor Palestinan' bit. Your naive attitude regarding Rachel Corrie (where you made several claims that were actually debunked by ISM members themselves who were there illustrates that point perfectly. Yes they are. Don't think anyone is denying it. But the first priority to any country is to provide for the well being of its own citizens. Ah yes, those evil dasterdly Jeeewwws. Heard they also use the blood of Arabs to make their motza.

I never said you did.... but earlier on you pointed to "sick disgusting Israelis try to dominate the blogosphere", as if someone who doesn't think the sun shines out Hamas's behind is somehow under some Zionist mind control. Sorry, some of us have looked at the data (an not just pro-Palestinan web sites), and have come to our conclusions through logic and a proper application of skepticism. Except nowhere in my post do I ever attribute the term 'useful idiot' to Lenin. How are those strawmen doing? Falling down before your mighty abilities? Not really... Believe it or not, there ARE many pictures/videos that are coming from the area that are appearing in mainstream media. If it appears on CNN, one of the major TV networks, a well respected daily, etc. you can assume the story is a little bit closer to the truth than some 'jewsareevil-israelmustdie' web site. I'm not dismissing them simply because they're 'pro-palestine'. I'm dismissing them because the information they present does not stand up to proper skeptical scrutiny. In this case, the pictures do not need to be doctored to be misleading and/or taken out of context. The fact that they are still pictures means that we do not know what happened prior to or during the time she was run over. I'm not blaming the Palistinainans for not having a video camera, I'm pointing out that the 'analysis' of the situation is prone to abuse without such a video. Uhhh... no. I never claimed that. But way to attack those straw men. They must be trembling in their boots. You had argued earlier that she was standing at the time she was run over, and that somehow implies that the driver should have been able to see her. The pictures show someone well in front of the bulldozer that suggests she should have been seen. But without actual video evidence, we can't tell whether, at the time she was run over, whether she was actually standing or had fallen, or whether she was actually behind any debris. All we have is a picture taken an hour or so before showing her standing, and one of her after she had been run over. And we are just supposed to accept the word of some sort of anti-Israeli web site about exactly what happened between those 2 pictures. Vest is irrelevant if the driver can't see her. Or do you expect all IDF drivers to have X-ray vision? No evidence that she was actually using it at the time she was run over, or whether a driver would have been able to hear her over the sound of the engine, or even been able to identify it as an indication someone was being injured. Or are you assuming the megaphone was some magical item that was supposed to protect her from all harm? Again, no need to 'lie down' in the rubble... losing footing, being behind a wall, etc. would have also caused her to be out of the field of vision. Even Mother Jones (a magazine that is more noted for taking a 'left wing' stance) suggests that the Israeli version (an accident caused by a limited field of view) makes sense. Here's a segment of the article where one of the ISM people (who initially blamed the Israelis) changes his mind... Oh, and keep mind that this is someone who was actually there... ..."Smith" later gave an interview in which he acknowledged that the bulldozer operator could well have lost sight of Corrie after she tumbled down the dirt pile. And the infamous photo series turned out to be misleading. In fact, the megaphone photo was taken hours before Corrie's death; she had handed the loudspeaker to a colleague some time before she was run over, and she was kneeling, not standing... http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/20.../ma_497_01.html Oh, and by the way, if you do read that article, you'll note that her death was covered by Reuters. So, unlike your assertion that "only" pro-Palestinian sites will carry this type of news, it looks like, if you really want, you can find your 'evidence' in other locations if you really wanted.

Wait a second.... let me get this straight... You suggest that Canadian Jewish Congress is biased, so you don't believe what they say. Yet earlier in the thread you posted a link to 'electronic intifada' as a source of information? You don't think Electronic Intifada would have a reason to be biased? "Dear kettle: I wish to make a statement about your current hue... - Signed... the pot."

Right? And you have fact to back that up? How about this case... Its a story (run on CNN) that shows a supposed Palestinian funeral where the 'victim' ends up getting up and walking away. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/03/jenin.tape/ "I'm not dead yet... I'm getting better!" Hmmmm... so Israel doesn't want yet more innocent people in the way. Ever think that perhaps they are simply trying to avoid getting blamed for causing more unnecessary deaths should a reporter end up in the middle of some confrontation? You are making the mistake of assuming that people who support Israel have not 'asked questions'. Many of us have examined the situation, weighed all evidence, applied a healthy dose of skepticism and logic, and still have come to the conclusion that Israel is morally right regarding the conflict. And in the middle east, that seems to be the Palestinians who don't care how many children are killed. Perhaps before you go accusing the Israelis of lying you should consider the case of Jenin. Jenin was a refuge camp in the west bank, and was often used for launching suicide attacks against Israel. In 2002, Israel launched an attack against the camp. Palestinians claimed 'hundreds' were killed, Israel said the number was closer to 50. It wasn't until later that the Palsestinians, the U.N. and human rights groups admitted that Israel was right and that the Palestinians were greatly over-estimating the casualties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin So before you accuse Israel of 'lying', keep the Jenin death toll in mind. Sometimes news reports are faked (see: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/07/211256 Yes, a 'blog' isn't the best source of information, but Slashdot is normally a non-biased source.) Sometimes information is taken out of context. (Like your pictures of Rachel corrie 'standing' in front of a bulldozer) And believe it or not, when Israel makes mistakes, the often DO own up to them. Yes, and so that Hamas can continue sending rockets into Israel with no interferance.

Rocket attacks had been going on for quite some time. Whatever Fatah and the rest of the world were doing, it was not stopping said attacks. So tell me, just how long should Israel have allowed the rocket attacks to continue before taking action? A month? A year? A decade? You know, it may be a little inaccurate to say the 'whole world' was silent regarding rocket attacks by Hamas, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone else was willing to actually do anything useful to stop such attacks. Except for the fact that Israel HAS been paying attention to Palestinan concerns... they negotiated with the PLO, they have dealt with the authorities in the west bank... Those responsible for launching the rockets have as their goal the destruction if Israel. Kind of hard to negotiate around that. "Ok, you can wipe us out, but only on every second week." How about: - Brainwashing by Palestinian authorities (remember, this is an area that regularly had TV shows with anti-Israeli puppet characters) - Attempts by leaders in Palestine and various Arab states to use the Israeli situation to deflect criticism from their own problems - Religous idiocy Were those the 3 you were looking for? The difference is, in a western-style democracy (such as Israel), anyone who has the 'drive' to exact revenge through violence will likely be marginalized by society, and quite possibly arrested by the government. In the Gaza strip, those who want violence (e.g. Hamas) are not only NOT margianalized, they enjoy widespread support. The fact that you cannot understand the difference between a group which attempts to minimize civilian deaths (Israel, who sometimes even drops leaflets warning about upcoming attacks) and one that actually WANTS to cause civilian deaths is rather, ahem, disturbing.

I have no connection to the state of Israel. I am not jewish (I am atheist). Yet I feel that Rachel Corrie was in the wrong here. Small little note: The term 'useful idiots' was applied by supporters of the former Soviet government to those people in the west who were naive in supporting actions by the communist block and/or criticizing the west. Given that definition, the term 'useful idiot' applies more to Rachel Corrie than to people who happen to support israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot Well, first of all, your source is a pro-Palistinian/anti-Israeli web site. That should make you at least a little skeptical about what they are presenting. Ok, lets give them the benefit of the doubt and say that these pictures are true... the problem is, they are still pictures. Yes, at one point I'm sure she was standing up... but there is nothing to say that she was standing at the time she was run over. In fact, the last picture where she was showing standing was taken between 3 and 4pm, and she wasn't run over until 45 minutes later.

Actually, that isn't true at all... People serving in the military are expected to follow various rules of conduct. In fact they are actually required to disobey any order which is actually illegal. (If I remember correctly, some of the soldiers involved in the Abu Garib situation actually ended up in jail, even though many were just 'following orders'). Of course, that still doesn't mean that individual soldiers can pick and choose which conflicts to fight in. Although many may claim that the Iraq war was based on 'lies and deception', it should be noted that: - At the time of the invasion, even opponents of the Iraq war weren't always saying that Iraq had disarmed.... the common mantra at the time was 'give inspectors more time to work'. Even Blix thought Saddam may have kept some of his biological weapons program, and that Saddam was not cooperating as he should. Saddam gambled that he could continue bluffing. He lost. - The issue of human rights in Iraq was also brought up prior to the war (in speeches made by Bush himself), as was Iraq's support of terrorism... even if a soldier did not think that the WMD issue was worth fighting for, the U.S. government has engaged in military operations in the past to help prevent human rights abuses (even engaging in such actions pre-emptavely). What exactly are these deserters expecting to accomplish? Do they think they will force the U.S. out of Iraq by deserting? Won't happen. And if they are supposedly so moral, why aren't they serving in Iraq anyways, rather than leave and let someone (who may not be as 'moral' as the deserter) serve in their place? Direct democracy (voting on an issue by issue basis) is impractical. At best, it would be expensive. At worse, you'll end up with a government trying to implement contradictory measures. We vote for people we assume will best represent and implement our views.

Really? How is it other countries went back into deficit years earlier in good economic times and Canada didn't? It was because Canada kept spending down. Yes, the Canadian government kept spending down... just as I said... by passing the problems down to the provinces and future governments. Hey, I can keep my own personal spending down if I can find someone else to pay for my mortgage. Too bad I can't force the squirrels nesting in my attic to pay rent. And while I am not happy with some of the conservative government's spending, much of the budget increases was due to increased health care funding (you do think its good to care for sick people, don't you?) and increased military spending (replacing equipment which should have been replaced years ago.)

Ummm... did you actually read the article that Martin Chriton had referenced earlier in this thread? It gives details about the stimulous package that the coalition had been proposing. That article specifically states: NDP adviser Ed Broadbent says the deal will include substantial aid to the troubled auto and forestry industries. . "Substantial aid to the troubled auto and forestry industries" is not some sort of bottom-up program. Its the same type of 'trickle down' idea that the conservatives are implementing. Or do you not consider Ed Broadbent to be a 'leftist'? Hey, some of us do dislike some provisions of government spending. We just recognize potential actions by a Liberal/NDP coalition has the potential to be even worse.

Keep in mind that there is a heck of a lot of liberal spin in those deficit claims. When the Liberals got into power, there were a couple of things going on: - Ontario was just coming off a few situations, such as SARS, which may have caused a temporary problem with government finances - If I remember correctly, when the Liberals came into power, they changed some of the accounting practices, for example, including hospital deficits in with the provincial government deficits. This was not something that had been done before (and wasn't done in other provinces). So, the size of the deficit may have been artificially inflated.

Martin's (and Chretien's) reputation as a 'deficit fighter' are, at best, greatly overstated. It is true that Mulroney failed to cut the deficit himself (for which some criticism is deserving). But, when Paul Martin came to power, he had several advantages: - A period of strong global economic growth and low interest rates - The previous conservative government had voted for tax increases, much of their impact took place after the conservatives lost power (so the conservatives get the blame, the Liberals get the glory) - The previous conservative government had also negotiated free trade deals, which improved our trade surplus and would have provided even more money to the government - The presence of a conservative government in Ontario who was willing to cut spending (and in many ways acted as a scape goat for many of the problems in central Canada) It should also be noted that the Liberals also significantly cut spending in areas such as health care and the military, something that shifted the burden of 'deficit fighting' to either the provinces (in the case of health care cuts) or future government (in the case of military cuts, where the current Conservative government has to spend more to replace outdated equipment.) Given the economic win-fall that the Liberals experienced (much of it out of their control) and the willingness to pass the buck to others, pretty much anyone could have eliminated the deficit.

Actually its quite possible for someone who is 'fiscally conservative' to support the Conservatives even if they don't like this version of 'big government'... It all depends on what they believe any possible opposition parties would do if they were in power. It wouldn't really help for a conservative who favoured spending cuts/elimination of patronage to support a party that would actually increase spending more than the conservatives, or appoint just as many (if not more) people to patronage positions.

While it is true that technically we vote for only our own local MP, the fact is that historically and by the rules of parliament MPs voted to office under a particular banner will tend to support their party in votes in the house of commons. So, while it violates the letter of the law to say people 'elected the government', it doesn't necessarily violate the spirit of the law.

At the risk of derailing this thread... Josephus wasn't born until around AD37, as such he would not have been around to document the actual historic Jesus; all he could report on was what others told him (or what was written by others, which may or may not have been accurate). Then there is also the issue of whether his writings on Christ are authentic (there aren't any surviving original manuscripts, and its possible that material was added following Josephus' death).

You see, that's the one thing that worries me. I myself am an athiest. Yet the last election I voted conservatives, not because I support all their policies, but they are currently the party that comes closest to implementing my ideal of a small-sized 'libertarian' style government. Yes, I did recognize that some members of the conservatives had religious leanings, but the party policy as a whole did not suffer. If the 'religious right' ever did take control of the conservative party, I myself would likely never vote for them again. And even though 'christianity' is the most popular religion in Canada, most Canadians are not regular church-goers and would not likely support a party that was trying to impose policies based on those of the 'religious right'. The U.S. republican party was hijacked by the religious right. While it may have been beneficial in the short term (shoring up support among certain demographics), it was likely not beneficial in the long term, as their policies may end up alienating more people than it attracts. Uhhh... not necessarily. While many christians [/i]claim[/i] to have a 'higher sense of morality', the fact is prisons are filled with people who are christian. Now, I'm sure you may come back with the argument that those people aren't true christians because they were doing something bad, but the definition of what a christian is does not have anything to do with how they behave, it has to do with how they view god/jebus. Well, for pretty much the same reason that we try to warn people away from giving money to con artists. We (us athiests) recognize the flaws in 'religious' thinking and want people to avoid mistakes. And I do find it quite ironic about how you are commenting on how christianity is 'under attack', when in the very same thread you tried to imply that it had a 'higher sense of morality' (supposedly compared to other religions or athiesm). Its attitudes like that that probably fuel much of the atheist attitude that religion is something that we would be better off without. Many athiests have made significant efforts to criticize Islam. For example, Christopher Hitchens seems to criticize all relgions including Islam. Except Christ isn't the enemy. In fact, he likely didn't even exist. Just the opposite... I was a christian when I was younger. It wasn't until I got into my 30s that I started to think really critically about the whole 'god' thing, and that's what turned me athiest. I do find it ironic that you'd comment on the 'brainwashing' of the socialist education system when basically that's how most people become religious... 'brainwashing' by their parents. The bible also teaches that eating shellfish is a sin. Yet I don't see too many religious people picketing down at the local Red Lobster. I guess its only a sin if it doesn't taste good slathered in butter. http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Not really. Most of the success the minority conservative government had in surving for 2 years was due to the Liberals abstaining from certain key votes.

So, what you're saying is that you actually trust that the leaders of the Liberals/NDP weren't in it to protect themselves over the funding issue. Tell me, what exactly have the Liberals done to establish such a trust in you? After all, Dion did state during the election that he wouldn't form a coalition. Hey, if you want to claim Harper has made mistakes or gone back on his word, fine... I'm sure he had. But don't be a hypocrite about it. First of all, you're assuming that such a coaltion would actually lead to short term stability. Yes, the Bloc has promised to support the coaltion for a certain length of time, but in reality, there's not much that's preventing them from withdrawing their support. Not to mention the additional instability caused by any outrage over this issue from the electorate. Secondly, even if it did provide some short term stability, it may have a negative long-term impact. If the actions of the Bloc end up improving the fortunes of the separatists through any 'deals' that are made, then we may be trading a short period of stability now for a long-term period of even more problems. First of all, what exactly do you think the government should do? Spend money? Where do you think that money will come from? Higher taxes? (That may actually cause more harm than good, since people will have less money to spend.) Increased debt? Canada doesn't have the same problems that other countries do... our banking system is more stable than that in the U.S., and our housing market doesn't have the same problem with subprime mortgages. Other than perhaps investing in useful public works infrastructure, I can't think of too many benefits that would come from increased spending. You complain about the surplus being 'frittered away' on a consumer tax cut. Yet cutting consumer taxes is actually a good thing to do. One problem that we do have is the problem of reduced market confidence. Encouraging sales (especially on high-value items) will probably be more beneficial than simply spending money just for the sake of spending money. Lastly, I find it ironic that you'd suggest the suplus has been 'frittered away', yet you support the formation of a coaltion that, last I heard, plans to spend BILLIONS on their 'stimulous package'. Even if the GST were still at 7%, such actions would probably end up putting us into deficite anyways. You are under the mistaken assumption that: - The actions of the conservatives are 'political oneupmanship' whereas the actions of the Liberals/NDP are not. - That the formation of the coaltion is actually in the 'best interests' of the electorate