xul

Without those restriction, Israel can win a conclusive military victory. But in political aspect, considering Israeli population less then Arabian, even if Israel defeated all Arabian country and occupied their territory, Israel would still not win. Just imagine, if population of North was less than South, though North could gain a military victory, but Lincoln could not win. Tht South could still reach their goal by waiting for the next federal election and vote him down. If Israel occupied all Arabian country, how would Israeli treat those Arabian? If Israel treated them as Israeli citizen just as American treated American Indian as American citizen, they would elect a Arabian president for Israeli. If Israel denied their political rights just as white guys ruled South Aferica, Israeli would be isolated by international community just as South Aferica had ever been.

I guess our dear communist leader's Mideast Policy is no policy but oil, just like Walmart. So they seems success at present, just like Walmart.

I'm a Chinese and live in Beijing, China. I came here because I applied to imigrate to Canada. I want to get some understanding about Canada and Canadian. I just mean if People lived in North states and South state of America, both of them have the same culture and history, can not solve their divarication peacefully, we also can imagine how hard to make Israeli and Palestinian, both of them were enemy each other in history for thousands years and the border of their country was defined arbitrarily by UN, living in peace side by side. I think even Mr. Bush and most of those Americans who support Iraq war also have a good willing. They believe they can establish democracy for Iraqi simply by knocking down Sadaam by war. They don't understand Sadaam or other dictators in some developing countries are only a historic figure in their certain historic stage. Just as Napoleon wanted to be a King of France rather than a governor of Republic. Being a king was not only the willing of him, but also the willing of a lot of Frenches lived in that time. So if Mr. Bush had a time tunnel and sent Amercian troop to defence the freedom of France, those American soldiers would find not only Napoleon but also a lot of Frenches against them. Peoples who believe they can expend democracy by war is just like those old time teacher who corrected their bully pupils by spanking them. Their purpose was right but their way was wrong. Spanking always lead children to more violent than reasonable. If any Americans have the willing to help developing country for the freedom and democracy, that's great. I just say, changing a regime is easy, but chaning a culture is not easy. So they must be patient, very patient. If majority of white American need a hundred years to understand that seating side by side with a black American in a cinema is harmless, Iraqi and Arabian learning how to use democracy to solve their internal conflicts perhaps needs more time.

I guess Mr. Bush's mind has just been overwhelmed by oil ,of course and Iraq, perhaps and Russia or Iran. I use VOA news programs to improve my English abilities. VOA makes their program in CDs selling in Chinese bookstores as the English textbooks and listening materials. By this way, VOA serves their purpose, introducing American value and politics to those countries that American public media can not reach, very well. But only one thing is wrong. If I buy CD, I will buy not only those released in 2007, but alos those released in 2005. Everyday then I listened what good plans of American Mideast policy Mr. Bush talked about in 2005 from my MP3 player in the morning, I would watch the bad results happened now from TV in the evening, so I deeply found how naive he was. I just quote one for instances: Now, both those democratic demonstrations are shelling each other from border side by side....and if both North and South American states could not negotiate a peace in American Civil War, why did he think Israeli and Palestinian could make peace only by one vote?

Terrorists commite terrorism because they want people to be terrorized. As people being terrorized, they usually adopt some activist reaction against those real threats and imaginary threats. Then people act against their imaginary enemies, those innocent people usually also fall into undue reactions to retaliate their offenders. Then the chain reaction on its way, the terrorists win. So, if we don't want terrorists win, we just don't let ourself be terrored by them, and do everything to avoid others to be terrorized to do any undue reaction to innocents. In fact, All terrorists in the world can not kill more people than those killed by car accidents. I guess there are no one who wants a ban of car, am I right?

Several hundreds years ago, a Chinese province suffered drought. The local government official reported the event to the emperor for some government aid. Some words in the report said:"The Civilians have no corn to eat." Then the imperor read this part, he asked a minister beside him:"Without corn to eat, why did they eat meat?" No offence. I just mean, you may imagine, if you were those Canadian who get a wage of $8/h, would you care a toothpaste according to European Standard but not according to American Standard? In my opinion, this topic can be divided into three seperated issue. All of them seems like a one thing but they are not. The first isssue is the the food problem. On this issue, I agree with you and others. If anyone, I believe there are a lot of this kind of people in the world, can afford to by pure Canadian or European bloodline food for everything he or she need, just do it. Ashamed, most Chinese does not believe in Chinese-made food either. Most food maker in China are farmers. No offence to any farmer in Canada, but farmers in China usually lives in poor and less developed area and most capable people have left there to city to look for good life. The fame in China usually are very small and the owner are low educated. They have not nowklege of Chemistry and the moral level of some of them usually(just some of them, not all) are as lower as their education. Most food and agricultural products manufacturers are the relatives of those corrupt local communist officals, though they are rich now, but their moral level still as low as their poor countrymen. So both of them, I mean not all but some of them have no hesitancy to use cheap but perhaps poisonous material to increase their profits. I disgust them. To the food made in China, I suggest anyone don't buy it anyway. Of couse, some of famers in China are honest, this is why most Chinese like me has not been poison to death now, we know from whom and from where to buy the good ones. But usually western importer have no sense to discern good guys and bad guys. They usually act as the way by their MBA lecture, chosing the cheapist one, so they more vulnerable to buy poisonous materials. The second issue is these products made by some Chinese industry, such as toothpaste. This problem is different from the first one. These problem is caused by the differece of industrial standards in different country. As a developing country, most chinese industrial standard lower than western ones. The manufacture of the "poison toothpaste" excused that their product according to European standard. I don't mean they have no fault. If they want export product to North America, they of course needs to let the products according the local standard but not to imagine that if a product can be accepted in European it may be certainly accepted in other area. The third issue is about walmart. I have no scence about that Walmart have any relation to those problem. Both Canada and America are democracy country. This means individual have their rights to deal with their property and how to increase their benefits. The derectors and shareholders decided moving their suppliers from Canada to China to improve their frofits, this are their rights. In my impression, walmart and other international corporations did not cut down their products standard when they move some factories to China. They just cut down the cost. Some people in America and Canada lost their job. But this is another issue. Just as in Canada now, I guess a boss of a company has the rights to employ worker who asks less pay to instead of those who asks higher pay.

Perhaps wearing a Arab aba is the best way to protect people from any ultraviolet radiation. Sometimes a stoneaged way works better than some modern way admired by civilized people. Government usually do less than which the public expect. They may set up a committee, usually are full of senators, lawyers, doctors and chemists, to deal with such things and make the public ease by being deeply convinced of those specialists who have enough ability to fix any problems for them. But the fact is, citing from a chemistry book authored by an American chemist I have read, "Paradoxically, although many of the environmental problems that beset mondern society are of a chemical origin, the methods of controlling and correcting those problems are also largely of a chemical nature."

That's right. If the rebels succeeded, there would be two small countries instead of present Canada, one English speaking, one French speaking. The effects were some sort of as Quebec was separated from Canada. In general, the rebellion was caused by some economic reason. In British, the demands of wheats from North America colonies declined these year. This impoverished farmers lived in the colonies. Most rebels in Upper Canada were farmers. But in Lower Canada, numbers of rebels came from people lived in urban area, though the rebellion also got strong support from famers. The difference suggested in Lower Canda, rebellion was not merely caused by economic reason. When Lord Durham proposed British government to make the political system more democratic and to achieve a full responsible government for the people lived in the colonies, he also suggested British to unite two colonies. The intention of his proposal is obvious. If two colonies was not united when the full responsible governments were established, Lower Canada would get out of British control because the majority there was Franch speaking people. But when two colonies united, British could keep on her control of the new enlarged colony because the population of English speaking people was far more than the population of French speaking people in the new colony.

I was not "equivalence" of them. I just said that the result of anti-whole Muslim was expected by those terrorists and extremists. For instance: There is a boy, his father is a criminal, and his father evilly try to turn his son to a criminal. He always told his son:"I'm a criminal. You are my son. You will not be trust by others forever. You must turn to me." All neighbours of the boy was disturbed by his father's crime. So they relieve their outrages at the boy and said such as "Your father is a criminal, so you will be a criminal. We all refuse you.", etc. The boy keeps silient in his father's crimes, Partly caused that his is his father, perhaps partly caused by the manners those neighbours acting on him. The neighbours doing is not equal to the father doing, but the result is that his father expected. Do you think what the neighbours acting is a good way to the boy or a good way to themselves? I don't think all Muslim countries screeching for the death of Israel. Several Arabian country such as Egypt and Jordan have embassies in Israel. Can they be considered as "screeching for the death of their opponents?"

Perhaps I may perceive the events by this way: Without them, would Great British change anything to unite two colonies and eventually lead to independence of Canada?

I guess your impression of how communists rule China comes from those articles made up by those refugee lawyers to serve their clients' refugee applications. In 1949, communists ruled China. Their top leader Mao Zhedong were very smart than Russian communists leader Stalin, Perhaps smart than Mr.Burh too, by adopting a policy to keep main "old system" such as priviate enterprises in cities, religions, even some neutral old government officals, if they were not against them, in their original position. So they recoverd economy rapidly, and did not meet any severe riots that America suffered in Iraq. Stalin did not understand Mao's strategy, he complained Mao acting as a peasant from Soviet tradational communists. But from 1966 to 1976, in the last 10 years of his life, Mao changed his mind and adopted some kinds of Stalinism. He tried to use Marxism instead of the old belief of people by breaking off all old religions and cultural in their mind. But he failed. Marx's book is too thick and dull, even most communist party members could not read it entirely. I have read these books several pages by curiosity when I was a teenager, my only memory of them is that it always call capitalists "Jewish capitalists". Finally, Mao's activism policy made Chinese economy worse. When he dead in 1976, reformed communist leader Deng Xiaoping deserted his policy and came back to the policy they adoped in 1949-1960. Now, communists leaders are really using government money funding all religions and their temples to keep them supporting or neutral to the ruler. But of course any extremist clergies are forbided, because they would shake the stability of the country. Perhaps this part you might admit. By the way, China has kissed off stone aged cultural for thousands years ago. Some philosophical or moral thinking such as Jerfferia has mentioned was developed two thousand years ago. This was a splendid period of China history. Then China was separated to seven small countries, just like Europe. Competition led to a lot of achievements, both in technology and philosophy. The decline of China began from about three or four hundrand years ago. Then China was the strongest power in East Asia. The emperor thought China had strong enough, had not need to contact with outside. So he ordered to close the border to protect his county from ancient terrorism---the attack of pirates. Some Europe preachers came to China early than British fleet came three hundred years, they bought the most advanced Europe technology at that time to China, the clocks. The emperor received the clocks and put it on the shelf of his room, but he could not foresee what was behind those clocks. He refused to send any Chinese to Europe to watch and study what had happened in Europe. The "border-closing policy" lasted several hundred years, until one day, the British fleet came and defeated Chinese army and gained huge war-compensation from China. Then came French, Russia, Germany, America....lasted Japanese. The sum of gold they gained from China almost can buy total industry of British to China. Review this stage of history, I can hardly condemned the Emperor who decided closing the border of country. He is an ancient man, he made a mistake because he could not understand something we can undetstand now. But in modern time, should we make the same mistake by closing the border for protecting country from terrorism?

Perhaps, perhaps not. You pose too simplistic a scenario. Perhaps because the manufacturing has been moved offshore, sales would increase due to increased cost advantage. This could also result in greater profitability of the company and thus increased tax revenue. To the owner of company and the employees who keeped the occupations, they will benefited from the business moving offshore. But to these guys who lost their occupations, the results are difference. To the government and the country, if a business move away, it will lose the tax from this business and tax from consumptions of the employees employed by the business. You draw the boundries of "society" to equate to "country". Why are the low-paid hourly workers in Canada any more deserving of jobs than those in China or India? In our global"society" isn't the free transfer of wealth to less advantaged individuals, regardless of where they live, a net benefit? I didn't mean they deserving that. I just meant if they disappeared, a certain parts of others, such as the foremen, could lost their benefits. Unfortunately it is the fact. Why more and more west companies move their manufacturing business to China? Do they like communism or its corrupt officials? I guess they don't. They only like there are a lot of cheap labourers in China. Or we could think it in another way. If Chinese government adopts some anti-poverty programs and makes those poor chinese workers to gain a wage as those in Canada , Chinese economy increase must decline because all of those investors will go away. Of couse, just as you have said, my model was to simplistic. If those unemployed people caused by the business moving offshore can shift their career to a high level successfully, developed countries will benefit from moving low paying jobs to developing countries. But if these people dropped into the poor and lied down on the welfare system, it might make the economy worse. These is why western politicians and economists always argue that China is a good factor or bad factor to west, I think.

It looks splendid. It will be very helpful to Canadian tourism.

A lot depends upon your definition of contribution and your definition of society. You should distinguish between different concepts: 1. Contribution to the economy. A strip-joint may contribute to the economy but doesn't necessarily contribute to society. 2. Consumption of services relative to contribution. Arguably anyone contributing less in services than they contribute in taxes requires the other members of society to subsidize their cost. This is not just restricted to the poor, but the rich who through the use of tax breaks and loopholes may contribute less than they consume. 3. Contribution to the "greater good". In another thread I gave an example of the Canadian hockey team winning Olympic gold. It may not have a direct economic effect, yet contributes to the pride Canadians feel. One way to guage the contribution of the poor is (as in your first example) to ask would society be better off without them? If the answer is "no" then why is it we bother to do anything to eliminate poverty. Thank you for instruction. In my opinion, a person's contribution to both society and economy are hardly counted quantitively. Perhaps the direct contribution to economy such as tax can be counted, but indirect contribution cannot be easily counted. For instance: Lets assume that in Canada there is a small enterprise which has the members of a boss, a manger, two engineers(in charge of products design and development), two technicians(in charge of machine maintenance, $20/h), two foremen($16/h) and a group of low paying workers(in charge of operating machine, $8/h). Now, if these workers disappeared (perhaps they all benefited from some "poverty eliminating" projects and got the $16/h jobs so they all resigned.) , what would happened? First, the boss will move his business to a country such as China or India in where he can find low paying workers to sustain his business' operation. Second, the foremen and the technicians will lose their job, though it seems the manager and the engineers would keep their job. Finally, Canadian government can no longer get tax from the enterprise, Chinese or Indian goverment will get the tax. So, Canada will lose a lot from those workers' leave. In other words, could we deduce that if they were here, they would contribute a lot to Canada?

I agree the main view that you said and I don't think there are a lot of people who does not work lived on the welfare is a good thing. But what I wanted to say is that if all Canadian were sedulous like the sons of that single mother and achieved as lawyers, doctors, politicians,ceos... would Canadian really no longer eat any Taco Bell? "when single moms were looked down upon", interesting. If she was raising her two boys now, would she deserve to be looked down upon yet? Or I may assume another circumstance. If there is a person who gets $100,000/year(I guess he will not be considered as a poor even in Canadian criterian), but he was looked down upon by a person who get $1,000,000/year because he pay less tax than that guy, would he feel this reasonable? Sometimes How much money a person gain depend on what kind of job he does. I guess a Canadian army officer battled for his country in Afghanistan gain less and tax less than a film star battled in a TV screen for himself. Should we believe the army officer contribute to Canada less than the film star?

That's the truth. The biggest taxpayer is always the biggest beneficiary of the tax cut.

Some times it is truth though it does not works as the way likes the words sound. In 1949, communists ruled China and they practiced their communism as the way of depriving the property of the wealthy and distributing it to the poor. So most wealthy Chinese fled to Taiwan, Hongkong, America and perhaps Canada. In 1979, Chinese economy became very worse. Most of youth could not get a job for the reason that if there was not a employer, there would not have any employees. And the deficit made government nearly bankruptcy because there are more output for welfare and less input from tax. So the reformed communists declared a adventurously new policy. They exempt most taxes of foreign investors and merely required they offer jobs to those unemployed people. First comers were those wealthy Chinese from Taiwan, Hongkong, the former enemy of communists. Then more and more white guys such as Wal-Mart came. In 1999, Chinese economy were realy boomed again. Communists had not only dispeled poverty in most area, but also had balanced their buget again by getting tax from 1.2 billion people. See, this is a way that "less tax = less poor people" works But my post's purpose is to interpret that a person's contribution to a society is not directly proportion with the tax he paid to government. Contribution to the society is not equal to the contribution to the government. Just as it showed in my second story. When government changed their policy from taxing employer to taxing employee, it seems employee became the contributor of society and employer did nothing. It is not truth. The truth is both of them have the contribution to the society unless they lived only lying down on the welfare without work. Of couse I'did not mean that each of them were the same. But calculating how many $ contribution each of them did is out of my ability. Perhaps a economist or a smart accountant with a super computer can calculate it.

The poor are always condemned to make less contribution to their country because they usually pay less tax to government than these wealthy do. Is this fair to them? Does a person's real contribution to a society always proportion to the tax he paid? About the issue, I have two stories here to interpret my view: 1. After Lincoln expressed the will of deserting the slavery in America, some slaveholders argued against him violencely. One slaveholder wrote a letter to Lincoln:"You told me that all countries in the world except us have given up the slavery, that's right. But you must understand that these black slaves in our country is different from those white citizens in Europe. These citizens pay tax to their government but those black guys, we supply them food, let them share our house, our farm, our road......but they have never paid any tax. These salverys have no contribution to our country, why shall I give up my slaveholding? " Several days later, he recevied a litter from Lincoln:"If you really believed that the slaves have no contribution to you and our country, why would you fear to give up the slavery in our country? " 2. In a Pacific island, the government traditionally used to tax employer but not tax employees. There was a employer, who hired 100 workers with the salary each of them $8/year, and according the tax policy his enterprise must pay the government tax $10,000 a year. The employer felt this unfair. So he visited PM, the bigest taxpayer supporter in his country, and complained why the policy made him doing all contribution of the country and the workers doing nothing. PM considered his complaint seriously and told him government wouldl change the policy to tax each workers $200 a year instead of tax employer 10,000 a year. The employer came back home gratefully. But when he went to his office the following day, he met big trouble. The 100 workers wait him here and told him that because government tax each of them $200/year, so he must pay each of them a salary of $208/year, or they had to resignate. Awaring he would spend extra $10,000 a year, the employer hurried to the PM's office and asked him to change the policy back its original. A secretary met him at the gate of the office and told him indifferently:"PM will no longer meet you. You know, he is only the big supporter of taxpayer, the contributor of our country. "

Have I said Canada must supply charity to anyone?

I agree the facts you said. But we must consider that most educated people are not easily become terrorists than those uneducated people. Just as in an Iraq hospital, a journalist reports:"There are dozens of people was killed by missed American Tomahawks." It is fact but if American fires thousands of Tomahawks, we can still consider that Tomahawk is an efficient weapon.

Ther world is open to everyone who does not refuse to live peacefully with others.

I'm an engineer and I used to use some engineering way to analysis problems. In mechanical engineering, when I analyse a mechanism or a truss, if I am uncertain with effection of a certain part of it, I will move the part away to see what will happen. Let's use the same way to analyse the effect of education. You said there are some Muslim students who held an meeting to advocate to destroy Israel and they complained discrimination without awaring their own discrimination to others. That is unpleasant. But you might imagine. If they was not educated, just as those in Afghanistan and Iraq, the circumstance would be more worse than it is now. The percentage of terrorists in educated people is far less than those in uneducated ones. The 911 attack was not made by real Aarabian students. They joined the terrorits early than they get visas. They just used the student identity to cover their identity of terrorists. Some people educated in west commited terrorism because they were educated in their hometown by those religionist when they were teenagers, a very vulnerable stage in their life. I don't know there are how many Muslim in Canada. If they were not different with those in their homeland, Canada police might be overwhelmed and there would be no peace. I guess most Musilim move to Canada because them don't like terrorism and violence in their country. Of couse, this don't mean they will agree with Israeli.

Education is the solution. Radicalism has been a problem since the beginning of time. Many people don't want to hear this but part of the problem is that there are too many have nots in this world. While I'm not linking poverty to ignorance, studies clearly prove that those who do not have the resources to educate themselves are left behind and these are the people who are most susceptible to being brainwashed by those who preach hate. Canada must continue to support poor nations and make it a priority to fight terrorism wherever it resides. I agree with you. Making those people to keep contacts with the world is also important. Most racial hatreds based on the ignorance of other people in the world. So isolating a race or a country is not a correct way to turn it to good. Keeping contacts with them, bringing up and encouraging open-minded people is the right way to fight against terrorism.

Attending these events is partially his job, just as he attend a launching ceremony of a warship. This doesn't mean that he is fond of this ship but neglect others. When those ship was launched, the former PMs have also attended their launching ceremonies. But there is really not any evidence that he or other party's politicians funded the temple using government money. The newsletter said "The temple's construction cost $40-million, donated by 'worshippers or well-wishers' of the BAPS religion." It is believable. If there are 100,000 worshippers donating it, each of them only needs to afford $400. This is not a large number. This just means they will not go to theaters or something one year, in stead of going to this temple and worship their god.

I think Mr.Harper just did his job. Every politician whichever the political party he is at his position will do this, or his just followed others. Let's assume that there were not any minorities and immigrants in Canada but only a majority, most of them are Christian. Then some members of the majority separated form the mainstream and created their own religion and set up a new temple. Now they invites their own nation's PM to their ceremony. Will PM refuse them? These Indian are Canadian citizens. So they invited their PM to their ceremony and their PM accepted the invite are reasonable, unless Canada PM really refuses to attend any christian ceremony. Of course, I guess Mr. Harper was fully awared that he will benefit from these Indian voters with attending the ceremony. But this seems his job too.