Wild Bill

Exactly! Yet the OP is trying to use it as Tory-bashing. His arguments are more and more predictable. Non sequitur after non sequitur.

Doesn't matter. It kept them confused enough to allow the invasion to be carried out. Actually eyeball, one could make an argument that it is those leftist ideas that have perpetuated the occupation and problems in Afghanistan. Once the ruling Taliban was toppled, the message was received loud and clear. America could have gone home at that point. As I said, a new bunch just as bad as the old bunch could have then taken over but they would have learned the new rules and stopped being a danger to mainland USA. No, at that point America elected to try to help Afghanistan become a country where women could be educated, school girls did not have to fear acid thrown into their eyes and all the other facets of a modern, liberal society. That didn't work out at all, did it? Yet were they not worthy, modern liberal goals? America could and perhaps should have just left them to be sand dune neanderthals but she chose not to. Me, you might find it hard to believe that as an old hippy I would love to see every acid tossing, gay killing, woman raping Taliban killed and thrown into a mass ditch! As Max Webster's Kim Mitchell sang it years ago -"Ah, you should be six feet under! Pushing up wheat for the hungry!" At least then they would have been of some positive benefit to their fellow man. That's not what happened and I would agree that the present situation as far as those humanitarian goals seems to have been a failure. Maybe the seed will flower eventually but I won't hold my breath. I have mixed feelings. As I said, I understood and agreed with the initial invasion but as far as trying to liberalize the country I just don't know. What have the allies got from it but soldier deaths and a waste of resources? One could argue that helping other human beings is its own reward but in this case with a problem of this level - again, I just don't know.

Topaz, these things are NOT big secrets! We've known all along what's out there and at what price. There simply is no other aircraft in the entire world that can do what the F-35 can do. Our only other choices are for aircraft that are old designs with MUCH less capability! We can argue about whether or not we should go with old fashioned, less capable planes. After all, our pilots are used to that!

Here's a line from and old song: "I can play reggae. I can play disco. I can play anything you want!"

This idea that the US went into Afghanistan for some kind of noble, humanitarian purpose was always wrong. That was only propaganda to placate citizens on the left to get their support to wage the war. Myself, I've always found the Taliban to be a revolting bunch of cavemen, for the way they treat women, girl children and gays. Still, I've always understood that it is impossible to change the entire world all at once. It may take 100 years before craphole countries like Afghanistan become civilized. No, America went into Afghanistan to send a very simple message. Terrorists had waged war on American soil! They brought down the Trade Centres and were planning more acts to follow. America had no choice but to react to such action. Since terrorists don't usually wear uniforms and don't have a distinct national identity they can be difficult targets. There is no official declaration of war from a specific country to define who you fight against. However, in this case it was quite clear that the ruling Taliban of Afghanistan had lent considerable and perhaps even vital aid to those who attacked New York. They had given them money, arms and protected areas for training. America made a decision. Aiding and abetting America's enemy made the ruling Taliban of Afghanistan also their enemy. They invaded, sending a loud and perfectly clear message to any other national government that if they did the same America would wipe them from power in their own country! They could not hide behind proxies with impunity. It's true that the Taliban will likely be back in power not too long after America totally pulls out. This doesn't really matter. It will not be the same people running the show! The ones who had made the wrong decisions are for the most part either out of power or dead! The new leaders will be well aware of the price they had paid and will not be so quick as to repeat the mistake. They will not likely ever again support an Al-Queda type group to strike inside the US! This is all that truly matters to America and it is all that really should. They have struck a blow in retaliation that has made their own citizens safer in their homes. Some would say that some other group could blow something up in New Jersey or whatever. That doesn't matter. You can't have perfection but that's no excuse not to try at all. If America had NOT invaded Afghanistan it's likely that terrorist acts on American soil would have only escalated. Why not, if the terrorists saw they could get away with it? It's just realpolitick. Old Otto Von Bismarck would have approved. So would have Macchiavelli.

Derek, fewer students take high school physics anymore! They drop it in Grade 9 for some arts courses. Along with as much math as they're allowed to drop. The ramifications are obvious.

This is actually kind of funny! We have some folks taking the results of a by-election as an indication the Tories are losing support everywhere! Apparently, the riding hasn't been Tory since Towser was a pup. What type of people live and vote in this riding? City core? Welfare, unions, teachers and kids? Sounds like core NDP to me. Non-union working middle class has never been strong for the NDP. It's always been Tory or Liberal and the Liberals are not popular in that demographic these days. The only result that could have meant anything would have been for the NDP to lose! And the chances of that happening were like trying to fill an inside straight. Yawn! Boring!

She's right though, GH! Once America is out of Afghanistan they can take all the girls out of school and kill 10 civilians every week and we will never see it on our news.

The issue was not problems. Of course all the factors you name affected the economy. Again, that is a non sequitur The issue was how competently Rae and his NDP HANDLED those problems! It's not your fault if while driving your Dad's car you got a flat. If instead of pulling over you drove for miles on the rim, destroying the tire instead of ensuring a cheap repair, then you ARE responsible! What's more, you'd be an idiot! Some folks handle problems intelligently and some don't! The fact that you keep missing this point says something about YOUR arguments! Or aren't we both speaking English here?

Once again, nobody argues with these points. They simply are not relevant! Rae was not responsible for the cards he was dealt. He WAS responsible for how he played them! Ever since all the NDP apologists keep crying "It wasn't his fault! There was a global recession!" Who cares! We had recessions before and will have again. The difference was, the WAY Rae and his team tried to handle the situation was totally loopy! He made it worse, not better! THAT is why Ontarioans still spit at the sound of his name, like the folks on Corner Gas when someone mentions their rival town, Wullerton! They skinned into office by a total fluke and were unprepared to govern. They left Ontario in worse shape than when they came in. They scared away a lot of business which meant a lot of people lost their jobs. Those folks tend to remember and not forgive for a long, long time. Rae also alienated the public sector, with his "Rae Days". They haven't forgotten, either. Of course, Rae may have learned from his mistakes. However, a great many Ontarioans see no need to give him if he led the Liberals or the NDP as provincial government a second chance. That's just the way it is. It would be easier to get Brian Mulroney re-elected as Prime Minister than to get strong support for Rae in Ontario.

I dunno. I've never spilled a hot McDonalds coffee in my lap. I will agree that the problem is far worse in the States than here. I'm just concerned if we will follow in their direction. Also, I worry about the tendency to rule against a corporation simply for some socialist notion that all corporations are evil anyway. Something is either right or wrong, both for an individual and for a corporation. When we start ruling against corporations simply because we feel they are run by "rich bastards that can afford it", justice becomes no longer an absolute but merely an popular expedient. I find that idea quite ironic, since I am the one who is usually criticized for considering justice to be an absolute! Once again, the Holy Words must be for everyone or they mean NOTHING, Cloud William!

Have you anything to support this idea? I had been taught that the British CHOSE to allow the French to preserve their culture and rights for Catholics! That was part of the tolerance and wisdom of British governors of those times and leaders. Of course, there were some bigots like Lord Durham but the example of what those British leaders did for the French in Canada was totally unique for those times - an unheard of progressive act.

Oh, we understand and support consumer rights! That's not the true issue here. Until recently the courts would make a distinction over the merits of a suit and refuse to hear anything that was obviously frivolous. Now frivolous suits seem to get heard all the time, especially in the US. This can benefit individuals like the plaintiffs and of course, the lawyers involved but the cumulative effect on society is quite negative. The money gets the plaintiff set for life and his lawyer gets a BMW convertible. Society gets bled for that money and there is less for the common weal, like hospital services. There is a difference between satisfaction for true injury and simple greed!

I would agree! This is a classic example of the disconnect between modern liberalism and reality. The Democrats are usually but not always the exponents of modern liberalism disconnects but the problem started a few terms ago when the Republicans were in power. They try to have the military capacity to carry out their political goals but they don't want to pay for it! When the economy is poor and people are hurting they tend to lose interest in international issues. They want bread on the table and they want it now! The problem of course is that often getting that bread on the table depends upon the international situation, through trade or perhaps the very availability of a product from a country or countries with political impediments. So a national leader cannot ignore international issues but he still must maintain power. The temptation to cut the military budget is always strong. If you're the country every one ELSE looks to for their defense you have nothing but your own military to rely on. There is no other country powerful enough to realistically shoulder the lion's share of the load. Recent American presidents have been cutting back their military and in some areas like basic man power they've gone too far. Afghanistan has fallen victim to the idea of applying private sector outsourcing to replace military personnel. In some areas this can work but when all is said and done you still need enough soldiers able to shoot weapons! Obviously, after Iraq and in Afghanistan America no longer has enough actual soldiers to properly do the job. Some cost analyst blew it! He showed cost cuts and his political superiors loved it but part of those cuts came from flogging their soldiers with too many combat tours, for lack of replacements. Soldiers are not machines. They need R & R. Their masters had the power to refuse them rest time but like the Danish King Cnut trying to command the tide to roll back, they could not control the limits of a human soldier. It would seem the American military is now controlled by the "suits", who tend to have little or no actual military experience but who gained their power through the private sector. They do know how to help politicians stay in power! As I said, starving the military in favour of social programs is always popular but if you try to pretend you still have an effective military then you are only fooling yourself. I admit to a bias here. I despise "suits"! I worked for a number of companies that when they began to rely on "suits" instead of hands-on management wound up downsizing or outright going bankrupt. All of us front line troopers could see the trend and when too many MBAs started to show up we would start sending out our resumes, trying to get off before the ship sank. The soldier who went wacko and committed this atrocity had served 4 terms and had been denied the promise to go home. As far as I can see, it is the "suits" who are truly responsible for this tragedy.

Harcourt is entitled to his opinion but he does not write gospel! Back in the 70's and 80's New York was an absolute mess! Especially the subways. No sane citizen walked the parks not just at night but in the evenings. When is the last time we had a Bernard Getz incident on a New York subway? While people of your opinion were telling the world that there was no need to fear taking a New York subway folks like Getz knew that was utter crapola from daily personal experience! Getz didn't get a gun for the thrill of it. He got one for protection. He had no choice but to take the subway and the reality of the situation terrified him! Those days are gone. Here in Canada, we often seem to be gung ho about developing them for ourselves. As I keep saying, something either works or it's just academic technobabble. Or perhaps more correctly, propaganda.

There's an old joke my kids used to tell me. Two hunters find some tracks in the bush. "These are deer tracks!" says the one. "No, they are bear tracks!" says the other. While they are arguing the train runs over them! The discussion in this thread about whether English or French is the more useful and preferred language for thriving in today's climate of international trade and progress reminds me of this joke. Forget about French being a dead language, or English supposedly being the new lingua franca. Learn Chinese!

ALL of them? What about the apparent success of the policy in New York? Has it been dismissed by the criminals? Being a techie, I couldn't care less how many "experts" someone can pile onto a given issue. Things either get better or they don't. An approach either works or it doesn't. I have little to no respect for academic technobabble. I witnessed first hand how "zero tolerance" for bullying was a total joke at my daughters' elementary school. Apparently, there are a LARGE number of other parents who share my experience! The real world is the only one that matters.

All true, Michael. However, it is also true that when I drive to and around Montreal I never see a road sign in English - not even a bilingual highway sign. The same is not true of the 400 series highways around Toronto or the rest of Ontario.

Speaking of backpedaling, punked, where does he say " a binding contract"? You specifically said the PM mentioned a contract.

Well, perhaps that's been your experience. Mine has been quite different. I find people usually don't think that deeply about union workers being happy, or non-union workers either. They simply want their product or service and couldn't care less about any union/management dispute. Worse yet, most people seem to want the cheapest deal yet demand the highest service! That of course makes no sense at all. It is the whining of a child wanting the impossible. Still, people are the way they are. Me, I consider labour disputes to be none of my business. Even more, I resent it when they try to make it MY business! Nothing infuriates me more than being held up for 20 minutes by an information picket. Especially when for most of my life the workers involved were making much more than me! I consider them to be fascist tactics and treat them as such.

Why would you automatically believe Karzai? He is not only a politician but the leader of Afghanistan and a leader in danger of losing power at any time. Which do you think he would rather do - find the truth or say whatever would keep the angry Afghani people supporting him?

Actually, upon reflection I find myself agreeing with you! Workers do have the right to organize! I don't really respect obvious lies as a negotiating tactic, as regards to phony sick calls but so be it. Air Canada does not have a monopoly with service. I do feel differently about areas where the public sector does have a monopoly. If Ford goes on strike I can go look at a Chevy model but if the provincial government workers go on strike there is no other venue for me to be tested for a driver's licence. I will go on record as saying that I in no way support that sort of situation. However, as I said that is NOT the case with Air Canada so let them have their strike! The issue of phony sick calls can be handled between management and the union. Meanwhile, let people choose other airlines and vote with their feet. That's freedom!

All the more reason to get them straightened out early! This is yet another example of the "Broken Window" theory, where if you allow vandals to get away with breaking windows, dismissing it as a minor offence, they inevitably graduate to arson and large scale destruction. Most schools today seem to try to ignore bullying. Teachers and staff don't want to become involved because the legalities are too inconsistent and the "system" will not stand behind any teacher that takes firm action. So they make a great deal of noise and fury about "zero tolerance" programs but in reality they do little or nothing to protect the victims. Then if a larger scale tragedy occurs they fall all over themselves covering their asses. If the bullying had been recognized at an early stage and the bullies truly disciplined with more than "anger management" classes, along with REAL protection for the victims then major tragedies would be far less likely to ever occur! Bullies bully because they've learned they can do so with impunity! They have personality flaws that mean they get a kick out of tormenting someone weaker! By never showing them any firm retribution for negative behavior they never have any true reason to alter it.

C'mon, Jack! They're pulling a scam and everyone knows it!

Hey, I never argue with success! It's always much easier to explain after the fact than to predict ahead of time! If Peggy Nash wins are you going to switch parties?