Stoker

I see, we should base our foregin policy and defence relationships on "gut feelings" with no adherent evidence, just speculation. And shackwacky, in both those follow on links you provided, neither have proven the United States wants us to pay a share of BMD......The first on there is no mention of a finacial cost, merely the "cost", which very much could be a reference to the "political cost". As for the second link, it's a bloody editorial. Now ask yourself, if we say no to BMD, will the United States shut-down the program?

Good point fleabag!!! I love hockey as much as the next guy (GO LEAFS GO), but I agree, the government has no place in this. I do feel sorry for those that are affected by the lockout, that are not directly involved with the league and players association (ie bar owners, jersey makers etc) but I really do think the onus is on them to diversify their customer base. As for lockout itself, I side with managment for the simple reasons that they are the ones that invested their money into the NHL teams and they are the ones that have taken the risks associated with a muti-million dollar franchise, and because of that, they deserve to make a profit, not the players. I'm sorry, any person should feel fortunate to be making at least a six figure income (alot seven and some even eight) for playing a game. Bring on the replacement players!!!

The Russians/Soviets had (they may still have them) anti-satellite satellites.......I don't think the Americans had them, but I do know they tested an anti-satellite missile that was launched from a modified F-15.........

What makes you beleive that current/future wars won't be"labour intensive"? I'll cite Iraq to prove otherwise........ As for a "niche role" for our armed forces, that dichotomy of our armed forces translates into a reliance in the areas our "niche forces" don't fill. IOW, you by proxy, support outsourcing our national defence and sovernity to others.

Whats that based on? The United States has said other wise, but if you have proof that contradicts this, I'd be very intrested in seeing it........hell, it could change my (and perhaps many others) opinions that are in favor of it. As for the failed test, how many attempts were made at manned (powered) flight before the Wright Brothers?

Yes MS, but that was then, this is now........couldn't this poll indicate that Liberal support is stronger in urban areas? Or could this mean the current Liberal ridings have increased their populartity? Could the Tories have lost support in ridings in areas that they don't currently hold seats?

So how does that translate into seats?

All Hail Caesar!!!! If you looked in the dictionary under WASP, there would most likely be a picture of myself as anj example.......with that said, I have an aunt from Wuhan that teaches in West Vancouver........I never liked you before caesar, but your rascist tones have gone too far.

The Americans have not asked us for a financial (or to put it on Canadian soil) contribution to go towards NMD, the only capital required is one of a political nature. Thus the affect on our defence budget is next to nil. As for the 7 billion dollar increase, thats incorrect, in that it won't be a 7 billion dollar increase to the budget but a one time spending on new supply ships, the Sea King replacements, the mobile gun system (which the army does not look favorable on) and new SAR aircraft. It still falls short on replacing our aging air defence destroyers, transport aircraft, 5 ton army trucks, upgrades and evetual replacements for our CF-18 fighters etc. To say nothing about a need for a dramtic increase in personal and overall funding. (ie spare parts, training, operations etc) And it doesn't even address areas that the Senate defence commttie (and the miltary itself) thinks Canada should invest in to further our own defence and forgein policy. (ala heavy airlift) The only party that campaigned on a progressive increase to almost double our defence budget, thus bring us closer to the NATO average was the Conservaties.......and they were deemed war mongers.

I also wonder what all those rural, union voters will think when the NDP welcomes radicals into bed with them.... How many fallers are going to vote for a party the supports tree huggers?

"Takeover"? Who took Richmond over?

So those that answered No, are all in favour of the Senate's recommendations (to save our armed forces), an immediate increase of four billion dollars to the annual budget of DND?

Nice one shackwacky!!!

Why? They are going to let their voice be heard and will have their religions protected from what they deem a sin.

I agree with you MS. With that said, do you think the state has no business in the kitchens and living rooms of Canadians also? If not, why draw a line between who Canadians sleep with and what they eat (no pun)?

retarded I disagree Kimmy, I think Maples use of the Blacks struggle for civil rights as a comparison with the BC NDP's "plight" is, by the defination of the word, very much so retarded.

Isn't that whats being done?

I think this is very valid, positive news, in that the legislation will be voted on in the house of commons and will truley reflect the views of Canadians (unless your MP is in cabinet and you don't share the same views of the government). This is what the Tories wanted after all.

I think the Dutch have allowed it. All in all, I think this was a positive (almost) end result for gay marriage. My only complaint, is that (as Harper alluded to) there needs to be stronger safeguard to protect religious freedoms. I hope this puts this topic to rest.

He did to Parrish, what John Stewart did to him. Why is that? I assume that her opinion carries more then yours or mine for that mater. Would you consider a poor American (or Canadian) priviledged when compared to a poor Haitian? If so, why? and So the opinion of the Coulters and the Carlsons that Canada needs the United States more than they need us is garbage? As for our relationship, I guess it requires one to define the "line" that seperates symbiotic from parasitic....... At first, yes (as I said in my post above) but on further reflection no. If Canada was a equal or closer to an equal, then yes, I'd be pissed, but since our realtionship is one of a "symbiotic" or "parasitic" nature, I understand that she's right. Do I like that she's right, of course not, but i don't see how we can change it, so I choose to except it.

What affords her that arrogance and ignorance? And we are not lucky that America is not some Middle Eastern or Asian country? With that said, of the two countries, who could likely deal with a "Middle Eastern or Asian country"? How does the quote go? Liberals don't have the monpoly on being Canadian....... Yeah, but we don't have nuclear weapons......so your point is moot. Yeah, but we didn't mass produce the Arrow, so you point is moot. So you're saying that we could win a econmic war with the United States? Also, what do think our economy/social programs would look like, if we had to pay for our own defence? Thats open to debate, whats the Iraqi death toll compared to the American? Besides, does the average Canadian have access to AK-47s, RPGs and plastic explosives? {see} my second point. That doesn't mater, do you think there would be a coalition to oppose it? Now both of you obviously have not yet got over the intail shock of being slapped in the face with the cold, dark truth. We need America, more than they need us.

Ok, so james is running a Harper/CPC campaigan....

.....You mean because they are leading? You don't see the simlarities between our upcoming election and that of the previous American and Canadian federal election, with Carol James playing the part of a Stephen Harper or a John Kerry? It all will come down to the BC NDP's lack of a platform, just like it did for Kerry and Harper.

I didn't see the Ann Coulter interview (since my cable provider does not yet carry Fox), but I did see Tucker Carlson "smackdown" Parrish.......it was quite funny Even though I'm a Coulter fan, I have to admit that my initial reaction to her staments on Canada was one of anger, I chalk it up to my (socialist) public school education and the constent bombardment of false Canadian nationalism in my youth, on reflection though after playing her statments a second time, and taking them in with a subjective mind, I have to admit, she does have a point

Military can't handle new troops, vice-admiral says Now with all the problems associated with our underfunded, mismanged and poorly supported military, it beg the question, should we get out of the miltary game? Now in this above post, the Globe's poll question suggest that we "sub-contract" our armed forces out to the Americans, but for the sake of argument, let's that allow any other countries as possable "defenders" of Canada. So should we?