Wild Bill

I agree. Access to Canada's market can't be the answer. The entire Canadian market is a bit smaller than that of just California! However, American industry has a huge investment in Canada. Auto manufacturers, parts suppliers and raw resources located here supply the whole continent and more besides. If they had to depend on just the domestic Canadian market they've have to close their doors in an instant. So Obama must be hearing nattering from American industry with a stake in Canada. Also, no one has mentioned an extension of the Afghan mission! Or political support at the UN against Iran. Or keeping critical resources out of Chinese hands instead of available to Uncle Sam. It's not surprising that we don't get told everything about such deals. Politically, Canada seems to have a death wish. We constantly shoot ourselves in the foot by championing politically correct causes while ignoring the water filling up our boat. Any government of any party that truly wants to do the best for their country must sometimes "hide their light under a bushel", so to speak.

Interesting! I heard or saw no mention at all of 5 others resigning! This is a rather important factor and I'm surprised it hasn't been talked up more. People tend to be blissfully unaware of how 9/10ths of a political party iceberg is under the surface. A party runs on sergeants, corporals and privates far more than officers and generals. One of the main reasons Reform did so well against the old PC's was that they took virtually all the PC's grunt workers at the riding levels, leaving them with only their officers. They no longer had much of an army to lead! It looks like Ignatieff has taken a big hit to the party machinery in Quebec. I'm not much of a Mulroney fan but one of his greatest strengths, particularly in Quebec, was that he understood that you should "dance with who brung ya", meaning you return loyalty to those who have given it to you. This ensures a strong support base. I'm waiting for our favourite Liberal spinmeister to jump in and tell us to ignore all this and concentrate on Harper's Quebec gaffes last election!

And all Liberals can't think logically! How's that for another generalization? One's as true as the other, that is...not at all. How can you say all conservatives believe this? Have you met them all? All you can say is that ONE government ministry is apparently stalling on a project that YOU take for granted as worthy! What we don't know is whether or not Van Loan is personally denying support or if his department is vetting out the organization more thoroughly. If it's a personal thing then again, that's not ALL conservatives! It's simply Van Loan. This IS a poltically touchy subject! If this organization proves to be and have done what it claims then great! Still, the almost universal consensus has been that sex offenders can't be cured. Now suddenly this group comes out of the woodwork claiming it can be somewhat successful. If Van Loan's department did NOT check these guys out thoroughly before handing out OUR tax money many of us would be some PO'd! I think you're jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion simply because you don't like conservatives and have a stereotype picture of them in your head. Me, I'm content to wait and see how things play out. Van Loan has to be careful. If he gives the funding and it turns out that this organization is not as effective as it claims to be the Opposition will be all over him. For that matter, so will many Tory supporters, for wasting tax money on some 'liberal touchy feely', 'effective only symbolically' program. So let's see what happens. It's early yet. If Van Loan turns the money down, we'd expect to be given good reasons. If we're not, then there will be lots of time to crucify him later! BTW, is it really proper to set up a poll vote that is really not a vote at all but just a partisan slam? It gives ALL Liberals a bad name!

It's good to see something like this in the media, finally! Still, on small point upset me greatly. What's this about our troops being under gag orders about the mission? This goes beyond mere security and "loose lips sink ships"! This is an affront to personal liberty! Is freedom of speech denied to those in uniform? Soldiers are citizens too! Some would say they have MORE right to citizenship than others, given that they are prepared to lose their lives to defend it! As I said, this is not a security issue. It is censorship for POLITICAL purposes, pure and simple! Any general who accepted that order should have resigned his commission! Frankly, I'm disgusted!

That is an unproven premise, not a gospel fact! Israel is a small country. It would not take many missiles in a first strike to eliminate Israel's ability to retaliate. So who at that point would turn Tehran and Qom into molten glass? America? Russia? Britain? This is what I meant in a previous post. The world would be horrified at what had just happened. The last thing most countries would want is MORE cities nuked! Morally, western countries would be unable to muster the popular support to do such a thing. Especially when nuking the Iranian cities would be killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, who only had the misfortune to have evil leaders. Under the Iranian religious dictatorship, the average citizen has little or no input into the actions of their government. No, far more likely would be surgical strikes aimed at forcing regime change. Likely there would be a popular uprising among the Iranian people. Such action might or might not prove successful in ousting the fanatics from power. Still, Israel would have been utterly destroyed! I say again, by the world view often expressed by Iran's leadership, to that kind of personalities it may seem worth it!

No, it came from America's free society! For years America was a magnet for some of the best of other countries. Nicola Tesla did not leave Serbia to go to South America. He and thousands like him saw their future in America! Few other countries were even considered by people like him! This gave America a pool of human resources unequalled by any other country in the world at that time. When war broke out, America may have started out behind in some areas but the size of its industry and the mobility within its society for creative inventors and other people to flourish gave it a hell of a competitive advantage.

I don't agree that the Liberal party could end, jdobbin. Look what happened when the Tories went to 2 seats! They spent over a decade in the wilderness and wound up having those who left them come back. You have to consider that a party is more than just the MP's. They are only the tip of the iceberg. The 90% that is submerged is the party infrastructure, right down to the riding associations. Sure, if the party's electoral fortunes went down the tubes the hit would be felt right down to the ridings but still, much of the infrastructure would still be there and would no doubt refuse to die. More likely, what would happen is that while the Liberals were floundering in said wilderness the NDP would also be under incredible pressure. All these years they have consistently capped their percentage of the popular vote by being too left for mainstream Canadians. Suddenly, they would find themselves the Opposition! The Opposition is expected to at all times be ready and able to assume the government. If the NDP were not willing to change, they would see nothing but huge Tory majorities for generations to come. So how could they change? Particularly, in a quick and timely fashion? There's no way they would have the people and resources to accomplish this for themselves. The job would be just far too much for them to handle. That leaves only one alternative...a merger with the Liberal Party! They would have to give up their name. They are the established "too left-wing" brand, remember? So the Liberal Party, even though it may only have a few MP's at this point, would have the more popular brand. The Liberals would bring that infrastructure of people and resources that the NDP do not possess. Within a term or two the Liberals would be contenders again! I truly believe this is a realistic scenario. So we agree that Harper would 'destroy' a party, just that I think it would not be the Liberals in the final analysis but rather the NDP! Majority governments would become more usual again. The BQ would have their power in Parliament seriously diluted. I think that Harper probably understands this much better than I. You're assuming his desire to decimate the Liberal Party is just fanatical partisanship. This seems like tired old demonizing of your opponent to me. It is much more likely that his real goal is to streamline Parliament by giving citizens fewer but more clear choices. He would have made his competition stronger but would have helped to ensure we evolved away from the mess in Parliament we have now. It might be very traumatic for present day Liberals but hey, it would be a very positive thing for Canada! So if it happens jdobbin don't just drop out of the process! Stop and think of where your true loyalties lie. Are they to a particular organization or are they to our country itself? I'd sacrifice any and all of our political parties if it meant positive gains for Canada as a whole!

Well, that's your POV. It still seems to me that it presupposes Iran is not intentionally developing the Bomb and actually intends to use it, likely against Israel. If your view prevails and it turns out to be wrong...

Ever watch those Billy Jack movies? It always struck me how the hippies never seemed to realize that if it wasn't for Billy Jack making war on the rednecks they would all have been wiped out! War is evil, true. Still unilateral disarmament is a synonym for suicide.

Well, you sure know how to appeal to Canadians for more support! Keep insulting them and who knows how well the NDP will do! You could set Dale Carnegie to spinning in his grave!

I still don't understand your real position. Are you more concerned with the letter of the legalities than the actual likelihood that Iran is hellbent to have the Bomb, complete with delivery systems capable of wiping Israel off the map? Which of course leads to the debatable but certainly valid worry that the leadership of Iran might actually DO this, considering they seem to be more fanatical in their fundamentalist religion than most countries' rulers! Their words, deeds and actions seem far from a parallel with the USSR leadership during the Cold War. Besides, Israel certainly does not have the luxury of its critics in being academic in its arguments and waiting for a first strike to fall upon its head, when that first strike would be nuclear! You seem to be saying that the process is paramount, that shooting the goalie is not justified, even when the goalie has pulled the pin on a grenade and is preparing to throw it at you! It should also be considered that Iran may be counting on the fact that after it nuked Jerusalem, the world would be so aghast that they would be against any retaliation at the same nuclear level! There would be sanctions, of course. Maybe even a UN-led invasion that might force the mullahs from power. To a religious fanatic, balanced against "wiping Israel from the face of the Earth" it might seem worth it.

Sorry, I just can't follow your reasoning. I never accepted your 3 planks as planks! As I said, they seem to me to be just opinion. You blow off the old Reform idea about binding membership policies as a reason why Harper does it differently, as a rebuttal to my point that the two parties are not the same???!!! You make statements like "EVERYONE KNOWS that most members of the party..." That's YOUR opinion, by definition! Hardly gospel! You define Reform as mainly a western party when we drew several million votes in Ontario alone. If you want to play numbers, Reform did far better in eastern Canada than the Liberals did in the West! Or are you going to argue things differently, both ways? As for the donations from Ontario, forgive me if I don't take your opinion as fact as to what happened after Day. The fact that I was personally involved in fundraising here in Ontario for some years and saw the numbers both before and after means I would have to deny my own direct experience in order to believe YOU! This is pointless. I will not waste my time again.

If things are as you describe, then why did Iran lie about it? If Iran felt the need to lie, how can you assume that this is the only thing they are hiding? I don't see your logic here.

Insulting me is not a proper rebuttal. It won't make either of us more right or more wrong. If that's the way you like to play the game I suggest you go over to "rubble.com" where having no manners at all will make someone feel perfectly at home. Where did you get those 3? Off the top of your head? As I had said, I was there! Reform had definite planks, published in their Blue Book for all to see! The Blue Book was binding on the party. Your 3 examples look more like 3 of your opinions as to what the parties stand for. Since the present CPC doesn't publish a Blue Book and to my knowledge has NO similar binding party platform written by its membership I don't see how you can say that there are ANY common planks! However, for the sake of argument let's look at what Reform officially believed and what the Tories of today SEEM to believe! Gay rights? Reform took no stand on gay rights! It believed in people rights! The only time it became an issue in the commons was over the vote on gay marriage. Reformers voted the wishes of their constituents, which for the most part was against gay marriage. They couldn't care less about gays living together. They just took exception to such being defined as 'marriage'. If it had have been called a 'civil union' it likely would have been treated different. Incidently, the Liberals and NDP at the time had perhaps a majority of their members against the idea as well! Their party whips forced them to toe the line and vote for it, even when many MPs had been respecting their constituents wishes or had railed against the idea themselves for years. They were given no choice and if you could find the videotape you would see for yourself Liberal MPs in tears at having to vote yes! I and any other Canadian who watched the televised vote saw it for themselves. The present party seems to have no official stand on gay rights either. Harper did allow a free vote and seemed quite content with the result. It was obvious that times had changed and that the bill would pass. He just didn't like the idea of a forced vote, like the last one. So if neither party had an official stand on gay rights how can you use it for an example of common policy? It is just your opinion of how the typical party member felt about the issue, which is hardly the same thing. Immigration? Reform wanted to drastically cut immigration and also speed up the paperwork process. Has Harper cut immigration? Has the process speeded up at all? Finally, the Senate! Reform wanted a Triple E Senate! We Haven't heard that term since Manning was Reform Leader. Can you cite even one example of CPC policy or action over a Triple E Senate? You seem to have some confused notion that Reform was made up entirely of bible thumpers. I was there and I can truthfully say I never actually met one! What's more, the party was more than aware of the need to keep politics and religion separate. When Stockwell Day campaigned for the leadership he kept his evangelical leanings totally low key. After he won the leadership he allowed them to come out and paid a hefty price. Membership and donations dropped like rocks! He nearly ruined the party! A dozen or so of the founding MPs left the party to sit with the old Tories, unable to accept what Day had done. You know, it might help you to actually google up the old Blue Book and read it, instead of just quoting gossip and propaganda. The present Tory party has no Blue Book. They have policy developing sessions for members but they are specifically NON-BINDING on the party leadership! This is exactly the way the old PC party ran and exactly the reason why so many deserted that party in droves when the option of Reform came along. Membership in today's party means simply the opportunity to give them money and do grunt work like banging in lawn signs. A member has zero input on party policy. Once again I ask, why did Manning ever bother?

It may not come to mititary action. Iran is still struggling to handle the protests against its last election. There are a lot of Iranians who are not happy with living under a religious fundamentalist regime. If the world applies REAL economic sanctions against Iran involving gasoline, food and essentials it might very well trigger an internal revolt big enough to topple that regime. In fact, if the revolt were so widespread as to be obviously expressing the majority will of the Iranian people it could serve as the excuse for a UN invasion. It would be Iraq all over again, only this time there ARE WMD's involved! The leaders of Iraq may have actually forced the UN down this path. They are faced with the choice of letting what appears to be a religious fanatic regime have nuclear weapons that may lead to the nuking of Israel while also disrupting the supply of oil to most of the world OR acting to topple that regime. Forcing a regime change is always expensive, messy and distasteful but Iran with the Bomb looks like a far worse option. Has anyone stopped to consider how toppling the religious fanatics would change the face of the Middle East? If Iran became a modern, more western secular country with rule based on personal freedoms and western values, it would make the area far more progressive. Iran has a base of very well educated younger people. If they were in control Iran would likely quickly become the most powerful country thereabouts, only in a positive sense! The only ones who would regret it are the religious fanatics.

Well, Tory came very close when he ran against Miller last time! And now polls show that Miller's way is overwhelmingly unpopular with folks in Toronto. I would think it obvious he would have a good chance!

You're quite eloquent about your personal opinion. That's nice! We've all got opinions. Again I ask, "If you truly believe that the Reform/Alliance is in control of the present Tory party, rather than the old PC crew, then perhaps you could list me at least 3 planks from the Reform platform which are still with the present party? Or 2? Or even 1?!!!" Are you going to answer my question or not? Giving your opinion is not an answer to my question.

Your history book must have been a bit of a thin one. First off, NATO is an organization of countries sharing a mutual defense treaty. Before WWII America had no such treaty with Britain. So unlike NATO, America had no obligation to help Britain. In fact, the very idea of such an organization hadn't been invented yet! It took that war to show the need. America DID implement a "lend-lease Act" where they essentially supplied Britain with immense amounts of supplies and materiel "on credit"! The credit terms were exceedingly generous, amounting to a "pay us back when you can" policy. America understood all along that if Britain fell the debt would of course never be repaid. Perhaps the greatest difference from your premise is that before WWII America did not have reason to believe that aiding Britain or even getting involved in what was at that time a European war was in its own national interest. NATO is a formal agreement that legally binds a group of countries into obligations for their common interest. It's just that much of Europe cheaped out on paying their club dues. Canada as well, I guess. As for Britain falling and America raising after WWII, with Britain selling off some assets, your history book seems to have omitted the fact that after the war most nations had a war debt. That debt was to the Americans because America was the major manufacturing company, in effect the largest and most available supplier. Few of these countries ever paid their debt! Britain impoverished itself as a point of honour, repaying its debt to America by the mid 50's. De Gaulle of France paid NOTHING! He just gave a gallic shrug and walked back to his home, the one that had been liberated by America, Britain and the Allies. America did not rise from war profits, as you imply. By the end of the war it had become the biggest industrialized country on the planet. It's power and fortunes rose because more than any other competitor it had the infrastructure and ability to do so! Ironically, some of the vanquished countries eventually became America's strongest competitors. Japan and Germany had had most of its manufacturing infrastructure destroyed. It took a decade or two but with hard work they rebuilt with the advantage of that infrastructure being new and modern, more so in most cases than that of America. Blaupunkt stereos and Japanese electronics and later cars seriously challenged America's economic power. As for France and Viet Nam, that was a whole other mess but it was obvious that America did not get into it "to take over". Take over what? A primitive country? There would have been far more easier targets. No, they got involved in Viet Nam because they felt that it was in their own interests to stop the spread of communism. They didn't care if Viet Nam ever made them money. When you go to war you expect to SPEND money! It sounds to me like your history book was so busy trying to make America look bad that it took the easy way, where it just omitted any and all facts that might have contradicted its assumed premise.

And are Flanagan's words on stone tablets handed down from Mt. Sinai? He expressed his opinion, jdobbin! A better informed opinion than most of us but an opinion nonetheless. Still, it heartens me to see how quickly you totally accept the views of a founder of the old Reform Party as Gospel, jdobbin! If you can do this with Tom Flanagan you can do this with others. Who knows how far this will take you? There's hope!

Your argument assumes the leaders of Iran are rational. In effect, you are describing yet another flavour of the old "Mutual Assured Destruction" Doctrine, in that if you start it you will receive at least as much as you dish out. With fundamentalist religions, Islamic, Christian or whatever, all such bets are off.

Fascinating. You've just posted an elegant explanation of why terrorism is so difficult to fight! One side breaks any and all rules. The other is hog-tied by them. One side does what it wants with impunity. The other dies, but with principles intact! You are entitled to your idealism. I'm more concerned with protecting my family. I don't see your view as a positive means to achieve that. Just another reason why I can never vote for the Left - simple fear for survival!

I think you are being too kind to the NATO partners. I have a simpler explanation. Ever since the end of WWII many european countries viewed belonging to NATO as a way to get the USA to pay for their own defence! This worked for over half a century, until things grew so expensive in handling certain conflicts that the USA started asking its partners for some REAL contribution! Now we see the true national character of some of those 'partners'. They are cheap moochers, nothing more!

Of course it is! Simple games theory states that if one side keeps the high road and the other cheats, the cheater almost always wins! More simply and even more true in politics, nice guys lose! I don't like it either but that's the way it is. If you want to blame something, blame human nature. If a party did it your way they would lose far more votes than they would gain. Period and end of story. Kinsella's "Barney the Dinosaur" tactic was an obvious cheap shot and frankly, religious discrimination yet it was VERY effective! I would love to see your premise tested, jdobbin, preferably with the Liberals taking the high road FIRST!

More control at the border? Yeah, that's worked well with dope and everything else! Where do we find these magic wands needed to make your solutions possible?

If you truly believe that the Reform/Alliance is in control of the present Tory party, rather than the old PC crew, then perhaps you could list me at least 3 planks from the Reform platform which are still with the present party? Or 2? Or even 1?!!! I WAS a Reformer! I was a riding Director for a couple of terms and still have one of the very first membership cards issued to an Ontario member. I was in the thick of it right up until Day ruined everything. I don't see how you can be right at all. You'll have to show me before I could ever believe your premise.