Rasputin

KK, i agree, and there is little support for the 3 million jobs lost number. Other posts have given good sources on the 2 million jobs CREATED. In any event some facts that the leftists ignore: 1. US GDP is climbing ahead at 5 % on average for 2003 and probably higher in 2004. Canada is less than 2 %. An economy needs 3 % + growth to generate jobs. Obviously the US will generate even more payroll jobs to satisfy the leftists during 2004 and 5. 2. Productivity is roaring in the US and dead in Canada. This means higher profits and more importantly higher capital investments and higher wages for existing workers. 9 % prod. growth in the US is the highest on record and job growth lags this indicator historically by 1-2 years. 3. Free trade. No one wins under protectionism. Steel tariffs in the US were a waste of time, costed according to some economists far more jobs and money then they protected, and they don't force needed business restructuring. As well they force up the costs of housing and other downstream steel industries. Idiocy. If there is a problem with Bush it has been his penchant to buy votes by using 'selective' trade protectionism. Lose this itchy finger George. 4. Mobility. Capital and labor are more fluid in the States than the EU. They are pretty fluid in Canada too outside Quebec which is a positive. You don't want over regulation, over taxation, and internal barriers. Having said that, one reason the US is wealthier is that it has less internal barriers than Canada. More trade goes between NYC and Chicago daily, then between Can and the US. Canada needs to have internal free trade, this will help create more wealth and more capital/investment mobility. Greenspan just supported all of the above with a speech yesterday: sce; Greg IP Dow Jones Newswires If the Dems fight on the economy they will lose the next election in a landslide. The economy in the US is doing very well, there is no denying that. Jobs is a lagging indicators not a leading. Pick another straw man.

Hugo, correct, free markets without institutions and laws do not work - in fact cannot work. It is like stating let's have free trade with no accounting or money exchange. It is a fallacy and a wrong headed statement to assume that market economics is somehow the law of the jungle, or that it is uncivilised. Both are incorrect and can only be uttered by someone who has never practiced business. It is sheer ignorance to suppose that those who prefer free commerce are barbaric or immoral. I would weigh the number of immoral managers in business against those populating gov't, and gov't agencies anytime, anywhere. I know which side of the scale will be heaviest. Sully said: This is true and leads to the moral program espoused by capitalism. Unlike socialism which preaches 'relativism', capitalism contains many themes of ethics, actions, work, respect, responsibility and change that make it a superior moral system. Part of this system is taking care not just of yourself but those who need help. The more connected you are to community, and the more freedom you have the more you will give back to your society. Men like Gates, Allen, Rockefeller, Morgan and Mellon have given away more relevant money, advice and support than any socialist, critical of individualism would admit. If capitalism is without moral flavor how then to explain Mr. Gates and his $1 billion per year endowment ? Shouldn't he be plotting with Jews wearing Green shaded hats the dominion of the world ?

Guys come on read the posts: I said that Islam - defined as the doctrine of Mohammad given in the Koran exemplified by 'submission to divine will' is a social and political failure - not Muslim. There is no doubt this is correct. Muslim means someone who believes in Islam. I forget the exact etymology but it is an old Arabic word formed from another word. In any event Muslim is the person. I did not say that the person is a failure, how could anyone say that ? The 3 pillars of the Koran have not produced the goods for the Muslims. In the real world when one structure fails, another should be tried. When state and theology are mixed this is not possible and leads only to further peversions. A muslim living in Canada is obviously given a wide array of choice freedom and responsibility denied to him in repressed Islamic countries. So the comparison is nonsensical. Just ask any Muslim who now lives in Canada. Pell your post adds zero value or clarity. I have no idea what you mean.

Morgan, don't blow a vein Here is my rebuttal, keep in mind i DO agree with your general idea and thesis, BUT i have to point out that immigration - legal and illegal - is probably a net benefit to society IF it is economically based. Having said that I am AGAINST the Conservative idea of 'free trade' in labor. This is ruinous. And I wish Bush would start to jail businessmen that hire illegals and take their assets away. But i do think that Hanson and others mix up a lot of ideas around immigration that distort the debate. 1. You said: "Hanson said that both social liberalism and business interests created a situation where 8-16 Million illegals are living within the USA. Hanson DID NOT say that illegal immigration caused social liberalism. That's my point." Actually he does make the connection. This is what he said in his article: Sure he is right, but what has immigration really go to do with 2 tiered education systems ? Fix education then, make everyone speak english and follow core curriculums instead of La Raza, Race power electives. BTW this is a state not a Federal issue and has nothing to do with Bush's plan which is one of my main ponts.2. You said "btw, the main topic is ILLEGAL immigration, although immigration policies themselves need re-evaluation and reform, as I mentioned. I'd suggest you read previous posts more thoroughly before you ask why, how come, where's your support?" I never said it was not about Illegal immigration. I said that immigration in total needs reform, but shipping 8 million illegals out of the country is plainly a non-starter. Even Hanson offers no plan to ship off 8 million people - this is so far from reality that even discussing it is a waste of time. As well you mentioned 16 million from a source as the number of illegal immigrants. This number is not backed up with any other source and one has to wonder what the President of the National Border Patrol is on about. Where are his sources i wonder or is there another motive to his exagerration ? All other agencies, newsfeeds and even www.cis.org which you quote as part of your sourcing state that the number is 7-8 million: this is found at http://www.cis.org/topics/illegalimmigration.html So take 500.000 illegals which is the usual number given x by 3 and you have 8.5 million not 16 million. 3. You said "Speaking of which ...where's your articles/stats support for your all-knowing opinions like "most employers are small time firms that use illegal labor"or that you "don't buy that immigration lowers wages" or these whoppers "You can't blame lack of legal enforcement on recognising the reality that 8 million workers are there and many if not all are working " or that low income tax paying guest workers will pay for their high cost maintenace." First I never said that 'don't buy that immigration lowers wages' - point it out to me in my posts - it is not there. In fact what i did say was Please provide backup on my supposed quote on wages. In fact i support the view that immigration lowers wages. This is common sense. One can also re-read Hanson’s article or Mexifornia. He makes the same claims. “Conversely some studies indicate that the presence of plentiful foreign laborers in the 1990s reduced the wages of unskilled workers by 5 percent.” P. 13, Mexifornia. You like to quote Matt Hayes at length on his emotional but relatively undersourced claim that: “According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, 25 percent of U.S. jobs now pay $8 or less per hour, and these are jobs which many illegal aliens fill, thereby decreasing the market pressures that would normally push wages higher. In effect, some American employers have deliberately imported a Third World economy to areas of our country, and Americans with a First World overhead must seek work elsewhere." I would agree with this pressure on wages. But this pressure recedes with time. The Federal Reserve agrees with me citing http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/wp0302.pdf that the impact on wages decreases as you go up the wage ladder and decreases the longer the immigrant is in the USA. In other words sure the immigrant goes after a low wage job – especially if he/she can’t speak English but over time IF they assimilate the pressures lessen. In both Canada and the US wages per hour worked have increased in the last 50 years not decreased. If immigration was the wage destroyer that everyone says it is, how do you explain the longer term rise in wages ? Inflation has been low since the mid 80s. I quote this from a labor group no less, “If the Boskin Commission is right about the magnitude of errors in the CPI, real wages of these groups have risen by 8 to 10 percent during the 1990s. Using a corrected CPI, even the 10th percentile male worker has seen a slight rise in his real hourly wage, and only high school dropouts have seen their real wages decline.” http://www.epf.org/labor97/97incom2.htm Many other studies support the same conclusion including Stanford's Hoover Digest http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publication.../henderson.htmlSo while you and I might agree that lower wage jobs are under pressure from immigrants, respected studies show that high school dropouts are more at risk, and if the immigrant stays longer in the US, the risk at wage depression recedes. Overall there is little doubt that even for the lowly 10 percentile worker, wages and compensation has increased, so illegal immigration does not lead to the infamous 'race to the bottom' in the long term. Rising wages and comp simply don't support this. Second, on who hires illegal labor – clearly big firms such as WalMart which is now going through a court process due to illegal contract labor used by one of its cleaning suppliers – will be less inclined to hire someone without papers, then the local construction company in Cali that goes to the local corner and offers cash wages for labor. This is nothing more than common sense. Most of the Mexican illegals for instance are uneducated, can’t speak English, and can perform only manual labor. Hanson belabors this point in his writings. I doubt that these are the workers that Microsoft is looking for, and I doubt that such workers would get pass the HR dept. Most illegals are picking, serving or packing. Most such firms are quite small, they might however interact with larger firms of course. Big firms of course might hire such labor, but given that $10.000 fine/illegal immigrant is law, i would suggest that most large firm's HR depts would be a little shy to do that. 4. You said, "Your mantra of the wonderful benefits of immigration on a nation do not recognize that America is now 200 years older. Back then there was a wild frontier to settle, and natural resources like water for all not infastructure decay and overuse like highways electrical grid, there were no nanny state benefits, no activist ACLU to twist the intent of laws what few laws there were, and assimilation melting pot was the unspoken rule for immigrants,immigrants came from a variety of country sources," I stated plainly that immigration is economic not a social program so this statement is fallacious. The most pre-eminent Immigration Economist is Borjas of Harvard – his conclusion is the opposite of yours – and he states clearly, “It seems therefore that the measureable benefits from immigration, are significantly magnified when estimated in the context of an economy with regional differences in marginal product, rather then in the context of one-region aggregate labor market.” What does he mean ? He means that immigrants are more fluid and open to labor market and product changes and go where the jobs are and which fit their skills. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/47/24741853.pdf In fact Borjas estimates that the US receives a NET benefit after all costs of $10 billion. So much for the fallacy that all the Mexicans are not working and applying for health benefits. As well economist Julian Simon calculates that native-born Americans receive more in annual government expenditures than do immigrants. The Urban Institute estimated that each year during the 1990s, immigrants paid $25 billion to $30 billion more in taxes than they receive in services each year. They state that with immigrants now ineligible for public assistance programs under 1990s welfare reform legislation, the net positive fiscal impact of immigrants will only increase. See http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-29.html Further studies on illegal and legal immigration referenced in this report also support that immigration provides a NET benefit to society. [institute for Policy Studies and the Interhemispheric Resource Center, 1997 Editors: Martha Honey (IPS) and Tom Barry (IRC)] Other sources which support this claim from eminent economists with long research tenure into immigration would include: Michael Fix and Jeffrey S. Passel, Immigration and Immigrants: Setting the Record Straight (Urban Institute). John Isbister, The Immigration Debate: Remaking America (West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1996). David A. Jaeger, Skill Differences and the Effect of Immigrants on the Wages of Natives,=94 Working Paper 273 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor: March 1996). Julian Simon, Immigration: The Demographic and Economic Facts (Washington, DC: The Cato Institute and the National Immigration Forum, 1995). So much for handwringing that the illegals will destroy US social services. At best the picture is mixed and there is NO clear evidence that illegal or legal immigration destroys budgets. You quote fairus.org re immigration costs and that the price is negative $20 billion. The rest of your quotes are news sources and not analysis. First on Fair.org - this site uses an out of date study – 1996 from the NBER [more on this below], which is contradicted by a more recent NBER working paper. Second, Fair does not address any revenues, taxes, productivity or demand driven economic benefits. It just lists costs. This is ridiculous. For instance Fair claims: “A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, based on the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, analyzed the cost of immigrants based on their specific use of means-tested welfare (both direct and indirect), and found that the total immigrant receipt of benefits in 1996 came to $180 billion.3 That annual amount is sure to grow as the population of legal and illegal immigrants receives over one million new people a year.” The study quoted is from a working paper, never published dated from 1995. So what DOES the NBER actually say now ? “We then estimate models allowing interactions between the employment response to immigration and institutional characteristics including business entry costs. These results, limited to the sample of native men, generally suggest that reduced flexibility increases the negative impact of immigration. Many of the estimated interaction terms are significant, and imply a significant negative effect on employment in countries with restrictive institutions.” NBER 2001 Working Paper W8660. What does this mean ? Well the US has highly fluid institutions and labor markets – unlike the EU. So the $180 billion that Fair is quoting is nonsense. If there is a small negative impact [according to NBER] in rigid markets such as the EU - how would that match to US data ? The US is more open fluid and adjusts more quickly than the EU. It goes to reason that the Fair report is nonsense and wildly out of line with other econometric analyses of immigration costs. For instance Borjas estimates that the fluid labor and capital/wage markets in the US will entail that immigrants will flow to jobs and not unduly feed off the social system. By so doing they return a net benefit to society. Fair and some of the URLs you listed as proof are not reliable data sources. You then quote pieces of the issue such as: “the cost of processing illegal aliens who commit crimes is $125 million annually. Mr. Kyl also is pushing legislation calling for the federal government to reimburse states by $1.45 billion” In the studies I quoted showing a net gain to the US, these costs are calculated. You also listed some very dubious claims about Hispanics in general - namely that 1. they are poorer than the average and 2. somehow predisposed to crime [i say this stat is due to lack of english and assimilation and has little to do with Bush's plan]. On the contrary Hispanic income distribution mirrors that of the general society, in fact Hispanic Median HH income went from $14792 in 1980 to $34670 in 2002. The Average US level went from $36437 to $42504. In other words the Hispanics are catching up in general. [strategy Research Corporation 2002 U.S. Hispanic Market]. There is little evidence that Hispanics are not increasing their wealth the longer they stay in the country. One only has to remember that more Hispanics live in the US then the population of Canada, and that their buying power is spurring Latin Music, TV and products. On Education, and Crime I agree. But like Hanson you miss a key point – these issues are not due to the immigration program but other failings in society – ie. Calif’s 2 tiered education system, where Spanish is allowed in schools ? Again Hanson and others blame Bush's Fed plans when plainly many of the ills lie at the state level. Bad programs at the state level mean illiterate [in English] young Hispanics with no job prospects. Rewind to 1900 when Italians who spoke no English were FORCED in school to learn English. NYC schools did not coddle Italians and let them NOT learn english. Italians are now mainstream and assimilated. Immigration has little to do with society’s preferences in creating minority rights and tiers. Look at Canada with its Indian Nation alongside that of the modern Canadian nation. It is a failure. So the critics mix up a number of factors: 1. It is NOT clear that immigration is a net negative to society. This includes as the studies i have mentioned point out, both legal and illegal immigration. To state that illegal immigration is a net drain on the economy is to be charitable debateable. At worst it is just simply untrue. 2. Immigration is a federal economic program, and Wash. is not responsible for ill advised forays by States into minority rights programs. I don't see the critics proposing anything intelligent to surmount this problem. How do you force Cali to abide by assimilation laws or rules ? 3. Bringing illegals into the real economy should increase tax receipts and security. You will not ship 8 million people home so forget about it. You better bring them into the real economy. I see nothing in the critics of Bush's plan that addresses that reality. As well I don't buy the notion that Mexicans or anyone else are too stupid to win and succeed. If assimilated they will chase the American dream. Assimilation then is the main problem, not granting amnesty and like I said before THAT issue encompasses a wide range of poltical programs, outside of Bush's immigration plans. I wrap up by again quoting Fukuyama - he is right:

Agreed. Islam - meaning according to Lewis 'submission to the divine will' - has been rather perverted by theocratic states. Chretien was wrong when he said poverty caused terror - Atta and his gang on 9-11 all learnt their terror arts while in Europe and all were middle and upper class. Palestine youth might be poor but incentivised by Arafat's thousands which they give to their families they willingly blow themselves and clueless victims, skyhigh. The problem with the EU and UNO is that they don't recognise the obvious; Islam as a social experiment has failed. Property rights, representative government, trade, investment and freedom is what makes people, states and minds healthy. Spirituality is a part of the mix, but when you combine church, state, and money into one group, you have nothing more than Fascism.

Commie boy, on WMD and the original post it is clear that some intelligence work was missing. The Questions from this would include; was there WMD and if so where is it now ? is national security subservient to the UN in an age of subnational terror groups and clandestine terror ops ? is the UN pure enough or is it controlled by too many interests and second rate regimes that makes collective security impossible ? Is NATO or the PSI a better venue for collective security ? The US supports multi-lateralism as given by money paid, the new Bush Aids relief for Africa [$15 billion] and the list of countries the US has rushed to defend, including as you can see, many Muslim states. I don't think the media fascination with US unilateralism is entirely correct nor supported by facts. The US is acting when its security is threatened and well it should. Clearing the world of odious Muslim extremism and failed regimes is a blessing - the UN after all sponsors terror in Palestine and was making money in Iraq. Hardly the gang you want to call when your house is burning.

I disagree with your point on smaller gov't. Early 20th century gov't was 5-10 % of GDP. Thanks to the European civil war and the keynesianism that permeated post war expectations Gov't ballooned. War economies were thought transferable to peace time economies ie. central planning. The concept was that if military styled governance can defeat Fascism it should be employed to combat unemployment, and 30s style economic failure. The fact that gov'ts caused the depression was lost on everyone including Keynes whose theories have been falsified over a 50 year period. You don't manage demand. So yes Canada has tried smaller gov't - the question for the CA is - can it convince Cdns that smaller is better ? The CA is right - but i doubt Canada will listen.

Marxism never tried ??? What do you call Leninism ? Marxism is state ownership by a party for the interests of the people - supposedly. It is just another flag for a dictatorship - where the state and party are one. In that sense it is no different than Fascism - Nazi Germany was another example of crude Marxism at work - free education, free health care and gov't controlling most of the economy. It also was an economic mess, and war was the only way out. According to Paul Johnson in Intellectuals, Marx made up his economic numbers from British stats and lied about the implications of the Industrial Revolution. Given the incoherence of Marxian economics this is probable. Marxism is indefensible at any and all levels. I have never heard anyone from the Alliance state that 'their' system - whatever that is - has not been tried. Please provide proof of both statements. The CA believes in smaller gov't not anarchy, and freer trade. The repeal of the Corn Laws in Britain in 1842 until about 1860 provided an arena of free trade, until both the US and Germany began erecting trade barriers. The WTO system has reduced trade barriers to on average 5 % for manufactured goods. World prosperity has blossomed as a result and GDP growth as well as financial flows have accelerated. I don't think think you have a clear grasp of what is Marxism or what the CA policy is. Maybe review the CA website before you post.

First of all this has little to do with the post. 2nd your analysis as usual is all mixed up. The US pays the most in absolute terms for the UN - so what is your point ? Add in all the extra costs the US pays for peace keeping and the numbers are higher. As for 'past dues' these were resolved under Clinton and the US is paying them off. The dues were withheld because as i stated Annan and the UN never bothered to initiate needed reform. Read today's NP editorial on UN reform. It is a gigantic, bloated bureaucracy that has little in the way of accomplishments. As well other posts on this site, cite sources that clearly demonstrate the anti-US anti Israeli tenor of UN policy and pronouncements. So your post is irrelevant. This post was on WMD and foreign policy implications not on the uselessness of the UNO which is documented elsewhere.

Good Morgan, no need to have your neck veins throbbing, i just asked simply for some backup. Let me reread your posts and URLs and get back to you okay ? This will be a good debate. BTW i never said that i believed that immigration by itself is either good or bad, i believe immigration is mostly an economic program and that if it is not implemented properly it will be bad for the receiving society. One has to look at Canada and France as examples where immigration can have a large impact on finances and breed areas of the population that do not integrate with the greater society. Francis Fukuyama just wrote this op ed piece on France: So i provide some proof non US based for your thesis that immigration if not properly controlled leads to all sorts of effects. However, my post dealt with Bush's Plan not with an argument on the good and bad of immigration. This is where i believe you and Hanson are incorrect. To quote again from Fukuyama's op ed piece he concludes: He makes 2 important points Hanson and critics ignore: 1. The reality of 7-8 million [not 16 million] illegal immigrants and assimilating them quickly into the society. This is not achieved obviously by hunting them down and shipping them out of country. 2. By bringing them into the economy they will pay tax, pay for social services and pensions. Hanson and others have nothing to say about this, except that they now eat off of social services and cost the taxpayer money. I disagree with this, and will provide proof later when i have time and reply to your post. I am glad you state that immigration by itself does not cause social liberalism. I disagree that Hanson believes the same - i don't think he does - he always makes the links and i quoted some directly for you from his own text. BTW of the 8 million illegal immigrants about 50 % are Mexican according to the INS and CNN. We have to watch that this debate does not become racist. I see no reason why a Mexican won't chase the American dream as much as any Russian, Jew or African would. Thanks for replying. Stay cool mate, as i said already i enjoy your posts.

Right you mentioned correctly: Russia is certainly undemocratic with Putin and the KGB now running affairs. No free press, little political opposition and Putin now wants to control most of the oil revenues [hence he jailed Khordokovsky who would not obey Putin the Great's dictates]. Russia has 1000 or so missiles according to various agencies still pointed at the US. Russia has a valuable role in the world, but it is still a poor, mangled country, with an unstable gov't and few real meaningful laws. I don't believe China is a threat but a potential ally. China has a smaller economy than California and is still a poor country with major problems in banking, finance, unemployment and rural poverty. The size of the dragon is more impressive than its strength. As for US rogue status, how do left wingers explain the following: -US support of the UNO [by far it pays the most] -US support of NATO -US support for Turkey to join the EU -US defence of the Muslims in Kosovo vs. Serbia -US attempt to defend the Muslims and others in Somalia -US defence of Israel against terror -US aid to Bali and Muslim Indonesia -US aid and support to Hindu/Muslim India -US protection of South Korea -US invasion and reconstitution of Afghanistan spending 1 billion dollars per month of US tax payer money in rebuilding Afgh. Some of the anti-US posts are illogical, false and unintelligible. They are made by people who believe that UNO inactivity, French hypocrisy and arrogance are better mandates for the world, then trade, security and democracy. They are just simply deranged.

Michael, come on - Annan a praise worthy leader ? You quote some diplomatic mumbo jumbo from Bush. Bush has to say that - the US was the nation that wanted Annan in power to replace Boutros-Ghali. You know why ? Annan promised reforms and financial audits and financial streamlining. He delivered on none of them. Foster makes a damning indictment of Annan in Rwanda - what proof do you have that he is an enlightened leader ? 1. Central African wars under Annan killed 1 million. 2. Annan and the UN made $21 billion off of Iraq while 300-500.000 civilians were killed. A noble leader ? No thanks - if that is your definition of a good leader, then you are as delirious as Martin-Chretien. As for Commie boy, you said Gov't policy caused the Great Depression which occured 2 years after the Stock market crash. Greenspan himself published a paper on this in 1961. The Gov't restricted money supply, interest rates went up and trade barriers went up. BTW at the same time in Communist Russia 10 million Ukrainians were dying from famine and purges. Stalin during the 30s starved to death about 15 million people it is estimated. Good system though.

Riff you said: Neo con military strategy ? Please list the sources for this. Slumping domestic economy ? Please list the % of the recent economic growth attributable to the war in Iraq. Hint; it is less than 10 %. sces; China Business Daily, Wells Fargo.Oil stability ? Iraq only produces 2 mbpd Canada is more important to the US in this regard does that mean the US will invade Canada ? On Security you are on firmer ground. You said: List sources for this. I found no reports that Powell yesterday said anything about Iraq - Jan 24th 2004. Was it on Tv ? If so which show ? If you read Kay's report Powell's evidence was largely backed up. I posted the link so read it, many of Powell's arguments pre war are supported.

Sir Riff and Commie boy, you missed the essentials of the post: 1. Martin is not very smart in asking Annan - a man with a very shady background - to come lecture us on our responsibilities in the world. 2. Martin should be repairing foreign policy, the military and initiating economic reform not embracing world wide socialism. 3. The UNO has many failings and is hardly a role model for Canada. That was the thrust of the post. Iraq etc.is dealt in other threads, please address your ideas on those issues in those threads. Many people already suggest that Chretien = Martin and vice versa. To my mind asking Annan to give an address in our Parliament confirms their worst fears. What do you say to that ?

Well flea actually in Kay's report he mentions more than 1 vial. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/ There is no update yet as far as i know on the other vials. So we don't know how many there are. In Kay's Oct 2nd report he also made mention of other serious issues; So yes technically WMD have been found but not the smoking gun the US was looking for. However enough has been found to justify its suspicions. I agree with RTR that: Energy gurantees and especially destroying OPEC is another good reason for the war, however, i think most objective people would recognise that setting up a police station in a bad neighbourhood is a very very good idea. Iraq's Al Ansar which is an Al Qaeda affiliate, Hussein's funding of everything from WMD production to Egyptian newspapers denouncing the US and his support of terror against Israel was intolerable. [Economist Jan 17th article makes these same points]. The war is justified - especially if you happen to be an Iraqi. Regardless of the problems there, pre-emption is probably the only strategy in a world of WMD and terror. I just wonder how the world's 'intelligence' networks were so mislead and how they can be recreated to be a little more intelligent.

Great post. It adds a lot of value. Thanks for the sources and arguments. Why are you allowed to post here ? Economist Jan 17th p. 27 in its article on the US jobs situation also states that Household survey data indicates job growth. As well the same article states that the US will experience an upsurge in 2004 as job creation follows productivity. The fact that productivity is at 9 % or so, is remarkable and the profit creation will eventually translate into jobs and investments. Jobs is a lagging not an indicating measure.

The UNO is no role model, neither is Annan. Why is Martin INVITING Annan as the first dignitary ? Why is Martin not repairing our foreign policy with real change instead of papermache rhetoric and associated post modern talk from the UNO ? Annan blames the Western world for most of its ills [see his speech in Davos]. As Peter Foster Jan 24th NP explains, he does not believe in freedom, private property or that the poor nations of the world must organise themselves. He believes that the UNO model must be the world model. He himself is a career bureaucrat that directly shuffled paper instead of acting in Central Africa, thereby killing indirectly 1 million people. Ask Dallaire if Annan is worth emulating. The answer is no. Neither should he be speaking in our Parliament. A grotesque message if ever one could be sent, and just more proof that Martin and his Liberal friends will do little to improve Canada.

Well in some posts someone called Martin, Paul Chretien. How true it is. Canada it appears will not dissociate itself from the corrupt UNO. Peter Foster in the NP wrote a very good article on Martin inviting Annan to be the first foreign dignitary to speak in Canada. This is revolting. Annan and the UNO represent nothing but socialised engineering and immoral politics and economics, as Foster describes in reference to Annan: Mr. Annan also made sure that the UNO stole $21 billion from Iraq during the 1990s -by Claudia Rosett in an op ed piece, Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT So this is the man and the group that Paul Martin wants Canada to listen too. Thanks.

I gave you examples URLs and sources. And you just committed exactly what i mentioned already - you just repeat yourself. Someone will give sources, documentation and proof and you ignore it - you just repeat 'show me proof'. You did this on the US job creation posts - so many times i wondered if you actually had bothered to read what the other guys were saying. I posted many of your posts in which you have no sources, make allegations and directly use OP ed pieces that are not your own - about 10 in fact. If you want to be the so called moral policeman of this site, then follow the regulations. You break 2 of them consistently: 1. Sourcing information that is not your own. 2. Adding value to the posts by posting information that is relevant or aids the discussion. My former post outlines this in some detail vis a vis your posts. Morgan did take information that was not his own making and repost it. He might have reformatted it - but my reaction is so what ? At least he thinks through the issues, adds some ideas and then makes a statement. On the other hand i could write the moderator, complain, and use my Software program to match plagiarised paragraphs with web material and create a fracas. But I don't - all i asked is for sources to be given on a few points he made. Civilised discourse i call it. My point to you is to have some common sense and realise that nothing posted here is original. If you read a T. Star article yesterday on a topic and posted on it today i would bet that maybe some of the info you read would seep into your post. You might even quote from it and not tell us. My reaction is so what - as long as you give some leeway and recognise that most people here are not interested in 'I said you said' discourse but discussing some ideas. So let's move on.

According to Reuters, Jan 24 2004, Kay will no longer head the Iraqi Survey Group - citing lack of resources and changed focus. He stated: Fair enough. But in his own report he cites Botulism vials being found and botulism is a banned chemical agent. Kay in various pre war books and articles stated that WMD existed [you can site Miniter's book, or Pollacks the Threatening Storm]. So Kay, the Conservatives, the UNO and all Western foreign intelligence sources were wrong - they all declared that Hussein had or wanted to have WMD. This does not make the War illegal or wrong. It does however point out that better intelligence is needed. Does this mean pre-emption should only be based on irrefutable intelligence on WMD ?

There are other examples not only of you lifting op ed pieces but of adding zero value in the discussion. The regulations are pretty clear, you accuse others of not following them and then commit the same acts yourself. At least be consistent. I did not reference any one individual either i just commented on your posts, you seem to believe that you follow the rules - you stated it yourself many times - i am just pointing out you don't. If you yourself plagiarise then don't accuse others of doing so, especially since some of them post many many items and might forget to either quote or source. You should grant some leeway instead of using it to refute their posts. Many ideas contrary to your own have value. For instance i just replied to a long post by Morgan where for sure he took info from some sites - did I cry and beat him over the head ? No i just questioned some of the statements and asked for sources. In other words i acted like a normal person should.

Morgan some good points but what Craig said was that you can't blame immigration for social liberalism. He never said that the Bush plan was perfect only that in one area it was good - namely bring working aliens into the mainstream economy. What is your objection to that ? You said that: The quoted number from both Dems and Reps is closer to 8 million - what sources are used for the 16 million number ? How do you solve this problem of 8 million illegal workers do you deport them ? Did Hanson factor in the costs, the broken families and the logistical problems in deporting 8 million workers ? Did he calculate the costs to business ? Hanson and others state that immigration lowers wages. This is true for the unskilled and hourly workers. I would agree that we need more highly skilled workers and like you I don't buy into the idea that we or the US needs more unskilled labor - maybe in agriculture and other cyclical areas but in general i can't see predicting the collapse of service industries if illegals were restricted. This is often the conservative view point and it is wrong. Immigration should target economic objectives and importing more waiters is just simply not a high priority. Having said that, many waiters start low, work hard and move on up in society. So we have to be careful not to denigrate those who wish to work and prosper and start at the bottom. Part of the issue with the 9 million unemployed Americans and the millions of lazy idle teenagers is attitude. Again however, how can you blame immigration for a general apathy and attitude against work in some areas of society ??? Hanson and others seem to think that immigration is bought off by big business. I doubt it. Most employers are small time firms that use illegal labor to depress costs. Wal Mart and other big firms don't usually engage in illegal hiring - look at the flak WalMart took when one of its thousands of suppliers used illegal labor in cleaning ! Easy solution is to prosecute, fine and jail employers who hire illegally. But as Craig and others stated this has nothing to do with Bush's plan. You can't blame lack of legal enforcement on recognising the reality that 8 million workers are there and many if not all are working. Where are the sources that these 8 million workers cause a drain on social services ? And if moving them into the real economy where they pay tax, where are the sources that they would further drain the economy. Hanson does not provide any sources for this. He quotes none, just to say that it leads to multi-culturalism. Does it ? Why ? Are La Raza and other groups permitted by immigration law to exist and push their agendas or are other political and social forces at work ? You state: Yes and so ? How does this impact Bush's plan ? Is not moving them from the black to the white economy and forcing them and their employers to pay tax a good thing ?? This should decrease costs not increase it. All of us agree that: -Mexico is the problem -Laws must be enforced -Jail time and fines must be enforced But you state for instance Right - but that is a state issue as well - Calif. if it wants to can recognise Mex. ID cards or not. It would be bad policy to recognise said cards, but Cali has the right to do it. So again, this has nothing to do with Bush's plan. Hanson and others are mixing up a lot of different ideas and blaming Immigration. It is like blaming China for job losses [another dumb idea]. Agreed. But deporting 8 million people is just simply unrealistic. What Craig and others said makes sense, enforce the laws, grant amnesty, track the illegals who are now legals, make them pay taxes, decrease the social services burdens, make immigration an economic program not a welfare/illegal immigrant program and on the social liberal front, stop the drive to multi-culturalism. But MC is another set of political problems entirely that is of course impacted by immigration but which certainly can't be blamed for the lack of assimilation. After all from 1800-1990 the US had a policy of assimiliation that took in all manners and types of races - and at each stage they 'bought' in to the American dream. Hispanics can do the same and indeed many have. I do agree that MC is wrong, but immigration is only one of MANY areas that needs reform - and a very important one. I think Bush's plan is good but does not address the future ie. law enforcement, jail time and forcing reforms in Mexico to create a country that does not parasitically live off selected US states. Once you start discussing Mexican reform then you cross the political and departmental boundaries in gov't and need then to access and bring into the discussion the State Dept and Foreign policy experts at the Pentagon. This of course complicates the matter.

What are you talking about ? Your post is entirely inaccurate you state; The British never wanted to conquer Afgh. they wanted a secure northwestern frontier for India. List your sources that they wanted to conquer Afgh. You also state the CIA imports heroin today from Afgh. List the sources to back this up. Afgh. was conquered in 3 weeks [contrary to media reports beforehand] and is being slowly rebuilt. You seem to forget that it took Germany 7 years after WW2 to experience ANY economic and construction civil infrastructure growth, and only the Marshall aid package prompted spending and economic reforms that propelled Germany into a positive economic-political situation. Afgh. will take years to rebuild. I don't remember the Americans stating that it was easy, simple or would be completed over the course of one month. It will take billions of dollars and various NGO's, IGO's, and associations to make it work. It is a poor, war torn, riven society that will be highly complicated to coordinate and make work. Give the US and its allies there some credit. Billions of dollars are flowing into the country, roads, schools, hospitals are being built, and slowly Taliban remnants are being killed off. Here you have the US dedicating money to democratic development. What other country has done this in world history ?

Hardner, you add a lot of hot air and nothing much interesting to the forum. On 2 of your posts your plagiarised: This is taken from among other sources: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east...racy_11-07.html It was also almost verbatim in a National Post article that same day. As well: this is a direct ripoff off an op ed piece that was found on many sites including; http://www.cric.ca/en_html/nouvelles/ and in the Toronto Star that same day. If you steal information at least quote the source. Further your posts are largely vacuous. You usually write one liners with no content. Some winners include: From what i read on the posts on the topic, sources were given about 10 times - why do you repeatedly ask for sources and then ignore them ? You also said: Sources ?? The figures are wrong and the comparisons wholly inaccurate. Where are your sources and from what site did you steal this information from? Numerous other posts already dealt with Health care spend in detail. Do you bother to read anything on this topic - before you declared yourself the instant expert ? You said: What is the purpose of this post ? It states nothing - the rebuttal is obvious. Companies profit from a clean world, and better technology and better use of inputs. So what is your point ? You said about Limbaugh - of whom i know very little: You quote that he lied - where is the source ? from who? and what is their vested interest in hating Limbaugh ?? Why is it true ? You said: Sources ? Rationale ? Ever heard of the 60s hippie culture, civil rights, minority rights and like minded so called leftist movements ? Other commentaries aplenty state the opposite that the US has moved in a conservative direction especially under Bush. Sources ? You said: Sources ? North America run into the ground - in all areas as compared to whom - the EU ??? From where does this idea come from. The area of the world with high living standards and wealth is destroying itself in all areas ?? Bush pays attention to polls ?? Sources ??? If he did he would not have made his tax cuts and would have pulled out of Iraq. Real problems ignored ?? Such as ? Can you list them with sources ? If not why did you post this ? You said: Freedom is not a higher ideal nor security ?? What is then ? Health care spending ??? Sources for this ? You said Saudi is the US biggest ally in the ME. This is untrue. US' biggest ally in the ME is Israel not Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is in Asia by the way not the Middle East and is a pretty important focal point in getting Al Qaeda, so what is your ponit about Pakistan? That the US should not work with it to capture AQ suspects ?? Again a post with no purpose or intelligence. And we could go on but why bother. You add no value. Add some posts with intelligence and a point of view that is supported without ripping off bad op ed pieces.