old_bold&cold

Shavluk You are just an angry petty person and it does not matter whether you served in the military or not, that does not make you an less of an angry person. I myself have not served other then reserves, but all through my family have served and many died during the wwII and Korea. some still have made the military their career. I do not know why, but it seems that nearly all of my family that served were in fighting roles, and because of my families German descent they were in need by the allies for translating, but also were going to be killed if aver captured. So you can, try to impress others with your I served and know everything attitude. Your type would never had survived the battle field back then as your attitude would have had your own side frag you just on principal. You and your mouth would have only served to do harm to the troops who would be doing most of the fighting to save your ass. But times have changed and so has the military. Now they would just dimiss you. You do not seem to know very much about the military and the way battlefronts work, so I will assume you were a stock boy or something the like. By your attitude here I would have to ask if you were a concious abjector. But that only happened with drafted people. Anyway, you seem not to be able to understand that it is Nato that runs the show in Afghanistan, and Canada is there only due to its NATO committments. Canada does not have a glorious heritage of peace keeping, but rather on of the issues that once a shot was fired they hunkered down in their armoured vehicles and ran from that area, until the fighting was over. It was more UN observers then real peace keepers. See the 800,000 Rwandans that were butchered while our so called peacekeepers watched. That was a day I was ashamed to be Canadian. I am sure that you must have rejoiced, as you certainly think highly of peacekeepers. The Canadian forces are a combat trained enity and will always be so. It was only under the Liberals that the forces were turned into jittery babysitters. But even toward the end of the 90's, our armed forces could not even do peace keeping properly. At least now they can agaiin take pride in things. Maybe they will then be able to show you that your angry man syndrome is only because you feel useless or something. I hope you get professional help for yourself. It is available to all veterns and they really have great facilities for such things.

The guns coming into Canada from the USA is Canadas fault not the USA. As I said that is our job. When we go to the USA, we stop at US customs and they do their thing. when I come back to Canada it is Canadian customs and they do their own thing. What leaks in to each country from the other is the fault of their own border security, no the other couuntries. That is what I was getting at. I do not blame the US for what comes into Canada, and the same should go for the USA. As far as the Millenium Bomber goes, I do not think Canada will accept him in 16 years, as he had not yet gotten citizenship here in Canada. So he will most likely have to go back to Lebanon or where ever he was from.

I said this already in another thread but I will repeat it here again. It is not Canada's job to stop terrorist types from entering the USA. That is the job of the US Border Services. It is their lax security that allows these people into there country. It is Canads job to protect Canada from these types. Most of the terrorists that go to the USA will enter Canada as a tourist and then enter into the USA. only a small number are landed immigrants with Canadian citizenship. I will admit we here need to fast pace the refugee process, as many undesirables can be here for years before we decide to send them back home, and then they appeall for even longer. But that is how our Canadian security works and Canadians are not complaining much. It is the USA who complains and it is not right because it is their own border service that is lax in catching these people. It is only Canada border services that stop and check what is coming into Canada. If too many sneak into the USA from here then the USA needs to beef up its security.

I do not think the USA should even care about what Canada does with this issue, but in the facts of life they will. For example Canada is blamed for allowing extremists to be here and for them trying to enter the USA. Most US citizens will say that all these people coming in from Canad is Canada's fault. When the reality is, it is the US border's job to catch and stop these people before they get in. If they do get in that is the failure of the USA in doing there jobs. It is Canada's job to stop them from coming back here to Canada etc if they do anything wrong. They may come here as visitors and go to the USA, and try to stay there as illegal immigrants, but as I said before that is not Canada's fault. But you will never get the people of the USA to agree. They still believe that the terroists that did 9/11 came into the USA from Canada, when they never set foot in Canada, and were allowed in by the USA border services and were even flight trained in the USA, by their own fight instructors. But yes sir, that is all Canada fault and our lax security. To get back on point, it is this same mind set that would blame Canada if we legalised marijuana. All marijuane in the USA would be again blame on us here in Canada. Even though Mexico is still probaly the biggest supplier to the US market. I this our goverment feared that happening more then worried about a slow down at the borders. Some times we have to let people have their little beief's even though we know they are wrong.

I really do not see the CDN going lower then the USD for at least the 6-10 years. The Canadian economy is very good and we seem to have stable monetary practices working for us. Many think the CDN will hit $1.10 by this spring, and that I can not argue with, as I feel the USD is what is going down lower more then the dollar going higher. the CDN has gained against other currencies such as the euro and the yen etc. so no one should be thinking that there are no reasons for this rise, because the values of these other currencies has also risen against the USD, but not quite as much as the CDN. For those saving their USD paychecks that I read earlier, they had better have the ability to keep these for many years, as there will not be any quick corrections coming that way any time soon. If I had to guess just how long our dollar will stay above the USD, I would say a decade, would be my best guess.

Soft drugs like marijuana are not the dangerous leading drugs that some make them out to be. The arguments that there are no long term usage surveys to say for sure that it is harmless is a crock. Many societies have had legalised marijuana for centuries and yes it does make peple on it more airheaded and carefree, it does not seem to be permanent. It was just recently that Methadrine was just a summary conviction, under its rating with food and drugs, but that has now changed and rightfully so. There are many more drugs that should be banned but we can not make laws for them all, and being an exbiochemist, it is just so easy to make things into designer drugs. Not that I would do it, but it would not be very hard, and anyone with basic chemistry and a curious mind could do it. For now there are just too many people making big money off of the illeagl marijuana crops, to make a decent run at legallising this. But it is something that could one day be done, but you will find opposition just about everywhere you look. I do not smoke or do drugs, since I was a teenager, but yes if it was made legal I definitely would consider growing it and selling it, I really would not do it myself, as it just makes me too sleepy even when I was a teenager. So now I am old and sleepy a lot any way, I sure would not need help with that.

If the young woman in the case has relations with a drunkabusive person or even a drug user etc., then why is she having children with this type of person. I would still enforce the child support orders and yes jail the man on weekends until he has paid his full support. If the woman is still living with this person then even more reason to make sure. There is no reason for woman to have unwanted children in todays society where birth control can be had for free, through many different agencies. The excuse that the conom broke is just silly and we do have morning after pills available, not just for rape etc. The trouble is that we now accept the single mothers of the world as victims when they were just as much at fault as to their behaviour as the man, and in many cases even more so. If a mother is struggling that badly she can have the child adopted, and rasie by responsible people. There is a shortage of babies for adoption purposes in Canada right now. It is a lot harder after the struggling mother screws up the child's life and then puts them for adoption. So yes, you are right when you say that these things are not working this way, but I say they should be and strictly enforced if need be. Then we will be better off for it. You seem to think that a person being a low life degenerate is a god given right. But we can do something about that and it would make for a better country if we would start doing so, instead of just throwing money at that person or their enablers. It will only change when society takes a strong stand against this kind of thing, and puts an end to its acceptance. I can feel sorry for some single mothers, but I sure do not have to support the reasons they ended up where they are, unless rape was the issue, and then we have the justice system for that and again the morning after pill, will sensure no unwanted events springing from such an event.

The whole issue of childcare spaces is more for political gain, not for any real gain for parents with children. It never has been the responsibility of any level of government to pay for childcare, and it really should not be so even today. While we do need a rising birthrate to survive in Canada, we also need responsible parents to be raising these children. I dislike the argument that single mothers just can not afford to work and raise a small child with out help from welfare. That really burns me due to tow things. One why is the single mother having children she can not afford to raise, and secondly unless there was immaculate conception, there is a father out there some where, that needs to be paying child support. The only valid reason for a single mother to be raising a child on her own is if the father is dead, and in that case yes we as the state should help in the costs. It is all our tax dollars and most old people have already raised and paid for our children to be raised and educated. I see no reason for us to pay further because some young people could not understand birth control etc.. I looked at the Harper plan as nothing more then a $1,200.00 bonus per child as more of an added baby bonus etc. There are no real needs that should be associated with this. I do not support government funded daycare period. I do say though provincial governments should be the inspectors of all daycare in their provinces and that they should set certain standards for this kind of thing. The Federal government should give tax breaks to all the people, if they want more money back in the pockets of the people. They should not be in the babysitting business in any way shape or form. If they wish to get into this kind of thing they should maybe plan to give a set amount for each child born in Canada. Say $1,000.00 for the first $2,000.00 for the second and $3,000.00 for every child there after. They may even make that per year until the child enters kindergarten. To me, that would make this much more feasible and also have a pro-birth stimulus. But they should never under any circumstances be involved in the daycare of those children. If there is a demand for something, then it should be up to the general business community and entrepreneurs to supply such services. It is not that that hard to see that this should be a workable scheme. It also will help show to the kids today that if you want to be able to get the good things in life, you will need an education to get them, if not you will just live a life that is full of just working to get by. That message is something the federal government should be making sure it gets out to all children right from an early age.

As much as I hate Mulruney with a passion, I do have to say that the GST and freetrade were what really did start us on the road to recovery with our dollar. The people ousted the PC's because of Muruney and rightfully so, but the Liberal were then bless with the mechanisms that were be the engine for the recovery. I will credit the liberals for at least using some of this to get us where we are, but they were also raiding this same engine to pay for many things under the table etc., so I am not going to give them much credit. Harper once in power even in a minority has had an easy time for many things and his cuts and economic views were what cause the world to look more strongly for the CDN and economy. So I will have to say that credit for this was mostly CPC and PC say 60% and 40% Liberal. That to me is a fair division of what I see happened.

The Liberal party is just too left of center as view by my own standards . Also along with that they have engrained into the party backrooms more corruption and deciet then I care to overlook. It really does not matter who leads the party, as thwe two most obvious camps (the Chretien style, and Martin style ), are both equally corrupt. You can put a bambi figure as leader (Dion ) and dres him up any way you like, but we all know that it will not be him that calls the shots. Hell, he can not even decide what his own thoughts are. My guess is that the back room boys were drunk and at the last minute of the leadership convention decided they could make Dion their puppet, but after soberiing up they saw the errors in such a thing. So they will let him flounder around and lose an election and hopefully then, maybe some of the party's old front runners will try to take a stab at the leadership. Manly come to mind, and do not think I would like this guy because I do think him corrupt and I know from experience that he is a party pasty, and would follow the orders of his handlers quite willingly. It should come as no shock to any liberal supporters that they would be willing to sit out an election or even two, before any real leadership candidates will come forward. That is not a big issue considering after the sponsorship scandel, many would have expected decades before liberal would again see power. So for them to let Dion flounder around and look totally out of his element is not a big deal. He is dispencible and of no real consequence. If the party really got behind Dion it would keep the old guard issue in the public eye and that is not what they want. Instead Dion will be made to look like he represents a split in the party, and that is what is wanted so the backroom boys can say that is where the old liberals ended and new started, but we all will know the truth.

I personally believe that the judges today are really more liberal minded when it comes to sentencing people. I personally believe that people in positions of authority that break the law should get the maximum sntece allowed by law, and take that right out of the judges hands when sentencing these people. I would rather see a person who reacted badly and with malice get some consideration of his background during sentencing, then those who were in positions of power and abused these powers in sentencing. But the way things go, if a police officer is caught for threathening and shooting his wife or girl friend he will most likely get a very light sentence. Where if any normal person did this same thing he would get a must harsher sentence. It seems that being a police officer is like a get out of jail free card, and thta is just wrong. The sentecing of the people in the sponsorship scandel for instance will not see much of the insides of federal prisons, and they did more harm to the people and the perception of government then a non-government person defrauding a company. So they should be made to serve the maximum sentences allowed for their crimes and they should have to serve them in the highest security prisons. There should be no mitigating circumstances in any of this. But as we will see shortly they will get a slap on the wrist. This is wrong. The people who are sentenced to life should have some faint hope of parole, but that should have to be shown by a much larger issue then normal parole requirements. Carrying a life sentence, should mean that you will have to carry that burden for life and yes, if out on parole that should also mean that you can not afford to mess up even in small ways. I do not mean you go away for speeding, but for any criminal offence you should again have to serve at least 10 years before you are considered again for parole and your prison record would have to be spotless. That is the kind of thinking we need today, not this fuzzy feel good stuff the courts seem to be doing.

In my home I welcome many friends from many different cultures. While in my home I do not expect them to give up their cultures, but I also do not want them to slaughter goats or other animals in the religous festivals they may wish to celebrate. But no, I would not insist that a silkth remove his turban or his kirpan. But if I were in an area where metal detectors were used due to bans on knives etc. I would expect all to follow those rules without complaint. I do not stop people from praying, but then again I do not want to be exposed to it constantly either. I eat beef and cows are bred for meat and dairy, they are not worshipped by me. So why should I have to hear the ruccess by those who think I am bad for my ways and cultures. In Canada we have what I would call a medium culture shock presence. It is not extreme in most ways and I do think that all immigrants should know before they come here, that we feel it is up to them to follow the laws of our land, and here we hold the laws of our land above all religious laws and rules. So if your religion can not accomodate into our laws, then do not come here as you would be breaking our laws. We welcome all religions that can be practiced within our laws and believe in the right of people having their own religions. No one is going to say you must be white anglosaxon , protestant, etc to come here. We only ask that you adapt to our laws and adapt your religion to our laws. For those who can not do this, then you need to find another place to immigrate to, as Canada is not for you. Now some may say this makes me a bigot because I will not allow for accomodation of religions outside of my own view of the law. But really I am just setting a code of conduct that Canadians already follow, and expect all newcomers to also. It really is not much to ask.

I feel that there is only a slim chance of a fall election, even if Harper were to manouver the throne speech towards that end game. There are just too many things for the opposition to lose and the CPC to win. Duceppe made a grave error when he decided to speak out about things that he would want to have in the throne speech or force an election. I am sure he would like to now take all that back. The CPC can make serious promises in the throne speech, where the bloc would look foolish not to support them. The same for the Liberals and NDP. So all this talk about demands is really just posturing for the voters sake. It comes as no surprise that the Government has the money to be able to make tax cuts a real issue, and who can be seen voting against such things. The throne speech can be worded to the CPC own strengths and then make sure that it does not have any of the things the others have asked for, but also give the voters the things they long for. If the opposition calls an election on those terms, it will be easy for Harper to get a majority government and all other parties would suffer. So does anyone think the opposition will pull the trigger on an election? This whole last 2 months has been played well by Harper and yes the opposition and the media have been used to lay the ground work for this all to happen. I do not think this was all by chance. I am sure Dion, Duceppe and layton all feel like they have been hherded into a corral, that is not for their own good. Time will tell though, but it is something I can admire from watching, and it is not over yet.

The 14 billion is not all that it appears to be. Well yes it is a vast amount, but it is only 5 billion above what was predicted in the last budget. The CPC said they built in a 9 billion expected surplus into the budget so really this is only off by 5 billion. The events that have allowed it to grow could have just as easily caused other events where it could have been a shortfall. Times have been good for Canada and we have been growing higher and higher in the way we are seen by other world powers. That is because of sound economic practices. We have lead the world in many things, and yes we now probably can reduce the taxes of the people and business. It goes a long way to be able to say that we can do this and still maintan our social services and our foreign aid and still be leading the world economies. For that I am thankful. It has not all been only the recent efforts, but rather efforts over a longer time. But recent changes have given back to Canadians the things that were let go in the past. Our military was one such thing and it is now rebuilding and hopefully we will once agin be able to express our soveirgn rights in the north, and do so with pride.

I can only speak for myself in this, but I just can not find one thing about Dion that is compelling me to think leadership material. He was a behind the scenes type, working within the party. He never really gave me a moment where I thought of him as anything more then a educated goffer. I was really surprised that he even attempted a run at the leadership convention, and was more astounded when he actually won the race. I still can not bring myself into focus as to how and why this happened, not that I minded as I am definitely not a liberal supporter. I really had to wonder if the liberals were joking, but when he won I figured that Harper definitely was lucky that day. In the case where an election would be called, I can only see the rolls of liberal supporters, having to reassess their positions. The election debate will be one that I will not want to miss. I can only think that his falling fortunes within his own party, are just the start of what will probably become a more growing realization that they picked the wrong man to be leader. I also think that the voters will see this weak leader as just being a place holder where the old liberal guard can pull the strings and turn him into their puppet. That would also spell bad news for the party. The melt down of front line liberals in the past race, was telling in many ways, but Dion is like Bambi caught in the glare of the headlights on the car that is about to hit him. It seems to me that now is not the time for the meek to inherit the earth and neither will Dion. He may be the first party leader to get replaced before he ever gets a chance to face the voters. I just can not see him as anything but road kill in an election this fall. That is why I do not think that there will be one, because Dion is definitely not ready to do battle, if he ever will be that is. This has shocked me a lot, enough so, that I actually feel pity for a liberal leader. I must be getting soft in my old age.

Your whole out look reminds me of a early adulesent child. You do not have a firm grasp on what the world today is about. You say things like world economy crashing and all money being worthless, as it that could or would ever happen. In early high school we talked about such theoretical things and we were supposed to learn from them. But it seems you only attened the classes where assignments were given and never completed them. I must also ask you why you think our cities need rebuilding? We do not have the inner city problems of the large USA cities. Even Toronto which is bad by Canadian standards is not ghettoise like Detroit etc. Also I must ask you where do you find a shortage of womens shelters in Canada, as I do know there are many here in Ottawa, but they are not adverised, but authorities have that info, and seldom are they totally out of resources. Also child poverty can be better addressed by family values and resources. We have many programs to help those in the lower incomes to get needed education and better job skills. I am not sure if all these programs are full when they start, but if so yes maybe more programs should then be budgeted. Maybe you can tell me just what your ideas are to address the things you say need fixing?

A very small part of the surplus was figured into the last budget, but yes there have been several favourable things that have made the surplus much higher then predicted. I think that putting it towards the debt is a good thing, but others will say that we should better fund healthcare. I will not argue about that, but I do think that the debt reduction is better as it will reduce the interest by almost 800 million per year on it. Yes we can get tax cuts and my guess is that Harper will have several of those initiatives in the throne speech, and then watch as each party would be cutting their throats if they defeated the government on those points. This was all known be Harper long before he decided to porouge the government and start new on Oct 16 2007. Harper is not stupid and this will go along way as for him getting it all past, or if any oppositions want to gang up and defeat the government, they will then be in between a rock and a hard place with the voters. So I have to give credit to Harper for a game well played, but for now it is only check, it would only become checkmate if the government has to go to the polls. This all was done quietly and without the fanfare, but I do think it a great move. So while many will try to make this seems like people were overtaxed, but then how could they vote down any tax breaks in the throne speech. Ducepppe was way too quick to shot off his mouth about what he would accept and not accept, but how will it look if he is seen voting again reduced taxes. He is a seasoned politician and should have known better then to show all his cards before it was his own turn. Layton and the NDP will also have a tough time reversing themselves, but better that then voting against the tax cuts. Which leaves us to Dion, he just might be stupid enough to try and vote against it, but will the rest of his party follow? You may well see a rift starting to show publicly within the liberal ranks very soon, if he does go against it.

If you are ex-army then tell me just how all this building that you want to take place can be done when the insurgents will blowup what you build today very firsxt time they can. What you describe is what Canada plans to do, but first they need the country to be safe enough for these infastructures to be built. It can not do this from a peacekeeping only position. I can not really take what you say seriously, if you have been there and know first hand what happens to the building efforts in the southern provinces, when they are attempted. The tanks you say are just toys, save Canadian lives and that is another thing I have to question about your statements. I wonder when you say ex-army, do you mean Taliban, because what you say to do would only help their cause in the end.

The Oil pipeline you talk about is to bring oil to China, there are no known oil reserves in Afghanistan and for the most part there are no real mineral or natural resources that would be of any large value in the country. IT main reason for being was back in the time of overland trade routes. That time has past and it is now mostly home for the huge number of truck drivers who still transport goods across Afghanistan to other countries, but the goods do not originate in that country. That is the only reason the Russians wanted it as well.

the people have been victimized for over 100 years by different empires whose only interest is controlling the region for purposes of power. those people are like you and me, powerless. they cannot help themselves under the control of these warlords, some of whom are armed by our western governments. You first need to understand Afghanistan and realise that controlling it would never bring any real power to anyone. The country is not rich in Oil or agriculture and for the most part barely sustains its own population. Only recently there has been the opium markets, and that has become the major income for most of the land. So you are wrong that it has endured occupation to boost power, as it never really had anything that compelling to begin with. Its occupations were only for political purposes not due to anything else. if we want to marginalize the extremists, we are going about it completely the wrong way. by taking them on militarily, in their own lands they ultimately resort to guerilla tactics and terrorism, using the local people as human shields to infuriate the general public against the west. because, to put it simply, what they have in the immediate now is far worse than before, under a repressive regime yes but not at risk of being killed from either side. any idea that this is all wirth it for "the future" is totally abstract to them. If you really think that the people of Afghanistan would rather live under the rule of the Taliban, then you are wrong, and the fact that most of the Afghani people have expressed there wish to have the NATO alliance there to help protect and rid the country of the old Taliban is proof of this. It is the old war lord structure that is supportting the Taliban, becaude under them they could play their corrupt rulings and gain the power they once had. These are the people who fear the country becoming a democratic place. Their only skill was to rule by fear and once that is gone, they will have to work to get by just like those who do so now. You are also wrong that the Afghanni people do not look to the future, as it is that very looking forward that they fear will happen if NATO leaves them without proper support. so we are trying to put out the fire by pouring gasoline, we give them an argument against us, as a weapon. the youth will want to fight back against what is seen as illegal invaders, occupiers, not helpers. even with the best of intentions, the enemy uses propaganda and heartless killing of their own in order to make us appear the bad guy. and once they hate us, we cannot win You assume that the people who are fighting against us are mostly Afghanni, when it really is not so. Most of the insurgency have come from all over the areas outside of Afghanistan, as they want to see the Taliban once again control the country, so they have a safe haven for training camps and a place to come to where they can not be pursued by normal legal channels. The youth of Afghanistan have now a more positive outlook at what the future can hold for them. They are being educated and will have way more opportunities for them now then at any time before. The only ones who are the way you are claiming, are those who would not educate their child even if it were possible they are semi-nomandic and most of them work in the opium and drug trades for their money. There is little future things in these people as they have been doing this for all there lives. These are the ones who will fight for the Taliban and not becaue it is what they want, but it will allow them to keep their lives the same. Only long term influence will change any of there minds on that, but it has to start some where, and now is as good a time as any. I have given you just a quick response to the issues you say you are trying to debate, there are 100's more reasons but I feel these here are a good starting point.

So Tbud you would rather we let the afghan people go adrift and have the Taliban come back, once again forcing all to live by their antiquated demands and women having to be treated as chattle, and no rights what so ever. Not evven to an education, or the right to refuse any man who has taken her through barter? Is that what you say we should do? If as you say there is no place for war and armies taking sides in this, that is exactly what would be going on. Allowing this would only embolden the taliban to push even further into their ways and then spread the terrorism they preach, to go beyond the borders where there only reason is to make all submit to Islam, or die. I do not know about you, but I feel that we do have reasons for taking opposition to such beliefs and yes if necessary go to war to allow the people of Afghanistan who were having this forced upon them, to have a say in what they want to believe and how they want to have their country run. Yes, it is a shame that we may well have to kill some in the process and that also means we will also suffer causalities in this as well. You believe you can do this by talking instead of war. So why have you not got on a plane and go over there to show us just how you will accomplish this task? Instead you want to sit over here in Canada and spue your vile against thegood our troops are trying to accomplish. You would never dare try to act on what you say is the real problems and your way to handle this, so what gives you the idea that people here on this board will take you seriously in what you say? You come here and insult the way the government has committed its troops, you then insult Armyguy who is on the ground in Afghanistan, which is where you would never go. So when I say that you sicken me, it is not that I am feverish and throwing up but rather that I can not understand how and what ever gave you the thought that you have a right to sayt he things about any of this, when it is obvious that you have no idea about what it is all about in the first place. If you have any real things to debate, then please make your points in an calm, and collective way, and we will discuss them. But if all you are going to do is spue your idealistic propaganda then we will ask you to leave, or refrain from posting until you can show real proof of all the ings you claim. You sound very young and childish to me and I do not feel like I want to raise another child.

It seems that Tbud is just another angry person who will try to flood the forums with his hate for war and the fact that he is unable to change the world just by his words. He will spout off for a while and then just fade away. We have seen his type before and they are just really sad by their own inability's to contribute anything of value to any decent subject.

Tbud I must ask the question of just why were these people killed? Were they in some way attacking the soldiers or standing in the way of soldiers who were trying to get at Taliban for instance. As this article noted that the place where this happened was a noted hot bed for insugent sympathiser's. So if we use our own intelligence to think about this, it would seem obvious that things are not at all what they seem. I would find it very disturbing to think that Nato would attack a village without cause or intell, to warrant such action. So where is the other side to this story? Why post this onesided and inflamatory story, unless you are just doing so to raise shit here in the forums. Since you and it seems your friiend, seem to have taken the idea that we are all in need of your wisdom, I then take it that you are 100% opposed to the war and all it entails. Even if it does bring about something good. We welcome honest disscussion of opposing views, but please leave the animosity out of it. It is very rude of you to just come and decide that you know better then all the other members and think you will somehow convert them into your narrow minded view of things. I hope you can fit in here, and by that I do not mean you have to be like the rest in your views but rather be like the rest in behaving in a calm and openminded way.

Why do people all have to think that just because we are not going with Kyoto that we are then following the American way of reducing emmissons? Harper has set out what he and his party felt were standards that they say will meet or exceed targets set for the future, 2050 to be exact. It does not follow the USA, as they do not really have a set plan, but they have had some success reducing emmissions. This was way better then the Liberals did with Kyoto in the time they were in power. Harpers plan is a step in the right direction and will meet the emmissions targets in the time frame of the issue. It is only the extreme environmentalits that say it must be done quicker and it must be done till it hurst us to do so. These self flagellating envirmentalists will not be quiet for anything less then painful efforts being made. Harpers plan is less painful and it will be able to meet targets. Maybe not in the way kyoto did, but in a way that is planned and workable. As far as him being on side with the USA goes, I would think that just because they both will by voluntary means meet reduction goals, that does not mean they are one and the same. I think Harper is on his own team if anything and he is trying to get others to come on board as well. Bush is just too engrossed with Iraq and other things to really be pushing things, and it is the house of representatives and senate in the USA that really has this battle with emmissions in their pot. They may agree with much of the Harper initiative, but I am sure they will make what ever tweaks they want to make, and call it their own. I blame Bush for many things, and I beleive rightfully so, but I can not really lay the USA environmental issues at his feet, as that is one area he really is not responsible for.

I guess what we have to note as well is that Jack Layton will say almost anything as well. Maybe that is why he thinks our military wrote this speech. Maybe he can tell us who writes his speeches, not that anyone would want to hire them.