Stoker

Ottawa floats five-year deal with U.S. to settle softwood lumber dispute Let the dick measuring contest with the Elephant begin

The opposite of that is: "Hey America, we love you guys (to your face). You're totally free to make decisions in your own interests(Even though we will condem them and can't be bothered to have a go at it ourselves). But when it comes to trade issues (which are very important to us), we think you should do us a favour and allow our goods unfeathered access into your markets (even if there are some potential safety concerns with them) and in return, we will reject your requests for help in defence and security issues (which are very important to you), and not only that, we will be sure to do it in such a childish and insulting way." With friends like these indeed....

What can I say.......too bad I can't pick the lotto numbers In all honesty, any reasonable person could have forseen some sort of reaction to our (in)decision on BMD. We say no to something that is important to the Americans (Iraq and BMD), but yet act suprised when they say no to something that is important too us........ With that said, I'll go out on a limb and say that this is only the end of the beginning of what will be a nasty trade war between our two nations......one that we will , without a doubt, lose and lose badly....

Don forget the very real threat of a lightning strike

I'd consider myself an "anti-abortion advocate", I'd have no problem with pray in schools (but I don't think it's a major issue) as for the equal rights amendment, to be honest, I don't know if opposed the wording of the amendment itself, women's rights or organized labour... From what I understand, some aspects of the ERA included laws on aboration......perhaps that was what Cheney opposed? I agree with him in princple with these points.......Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Fix the problem with the person first, before banning the tool. As with the ERA, I don't know in which context he opposed the above examples........ Cheney is no longer an employee of Halliburton, thus doesn't recieve any "paycheck"......any money that he does still recieve, I would assume to be in the form of a pension and/or severance pay. Thats rather weak..........most doctors make more money then the POTUS, and I can only assume that the VPOTUS make less then the boss........

I agree 110%.......On the flip side, do you think it's right that a handfull of our judges can rework the defination of marriage? In both cases, shouldn't the people's voice be heard via their elected officals? And to play devils advocate to myself, I suppose if I was a rancher in Montana, I'd look at this as a case of the judge protecting my buisness intrests......insuring my monopoly if you will........kinda like how the CRTC insures we get our daily does of "Canadian content", even if we don't want it. WOW, I think we have covered almost every topic on Mapleleafweb in all but a few posts....... It's yours if you want it

And I too won't argue your point......I just spent the last couple of minutes on google and found some of his first rulings 2002 (prior to Mad Cow) and they too went in favor the beef industry.......... That being said (go grab your Reynolds Wrap Newf), wouldn't a pro-US cattle judge be the perfect avenue for the Bush Administration to quietly tell Canada to "smarten-up"? Maybe we are on to something........you can be Bernstein, I'll be Woodward

I don't doubt American ranchers would have kicked up a fuss no mater what.........what I suggest might be fishy (or beefy if you would) is the ruling by the Judge, even when the Dept. of Agriculture gave it's "ok" and even Bush spoke well of opening the boarders to our beef .......... Funny how all signs pointed to the boarder being opended prior to PM PM's annoucment on BMD..... *Drinks Kool-Aid*

A powerful American beef lobby group, that is based in Republican slanted Montana, and in the court resided by a judge (Richard Cebull) that was one of the first judicial nominations of GWB and one of the first judge nominees to be confirmed my the Republicain Senate........is my tin-foil hat on too tight or what

What agreement have we signed that forces them to take, what they deem, suspect cattle? If the safety record of an American product was in question, wouldn't you want the Canadian government to "protect us" from it? With that being the case, since we refused to sign onto a program that would defend both of our nations, why should the Americans allow Canadian beef?

How does that translate into seats though..........What percentage of British Columbians live within the lower mainland and Southern Vancouver Island? How many seats do the Cons hold in the two major urdan ridings? IOW the majority of Vancouverites are in favour of SSM.......... What a shock.......there goes the Cons Chances in Burnaby Douglas...........

Judge grants delay of Canada-U.S. cattle trade Is anybody really suprised, what with PM PM's poor handling of BMD?

Why was Rwanda more important than 9/11 to Americans? IOW, why should America feel more sorrow for any of the tragedies around the world today, then their own disater? Why don't you appear to paint the rest of the first world with the same brush? As for the tragedies that are occurring right now, they are talking about them.......Powell called a spade a spade when he spoke of the genocide taking place in the Sudan, well the UN refused to call it that. Or look at the FRY, how many Muslims, were being slaughtered by Serbs, well the UN looked on? It wasn't untill the American led effort in Kosovo that this subsided. I find it funny how some condem the United States for the actions it takes almost as much as the actions it doesn't take........they are truely damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Why do you fault Americans for caring for their own first? If a Canadian city was faced with such a disaster, do you not think most Canadians would become self absorbed in it? Thats absurd.........What country(ies) would choose to base their Domestic and Foregin policy on a tragedy another nation faced, over a tragedy that was inflicted on themselves first? With your line of thinking, rape victims should be told to "buck-up" because they were not murdered.

Guilty as charged!!!..........I'm a 100% GWB cheerleader......I'm an even bigger fan of Dick Cheney.... It's funny, during the first gulf war, Pro Set put out "Operation desert storm" trading cards. Each card had either a country that was taking part in the war, a piece of militray equpiment or a person of significance to the war. (IIRC, the most popular cards were the Tomohawk crusie missile and Saddam) To make a long story short, my most favorite Card was the Sec Defence Dick Cheney card. I don't know why. later on, as I got older and learned more and more about Dick's past, the more I grew to admire him, based on his very humble beginnings in Wyoming and his ability to overcome adversity (much of which was self-inflicted). I guess I feel that I can relate to his "youthful" (teens to mid twenties) years and can only hope to emulate his more mature years in both the public and private sector. So yeah, I'm a fan..........whats your point? Give it a rest.........how many deaths occured as a result of the Israeli attack on Osirak? When you make your tin-foil hat, do you ensure that the reflective side is facing out, so as to prevent the evil GOP mind control rays from controling your thoughts? Also, when you make your Kool-Aid, do you stir the jug counter-clockwise to achieve all the essential effects? That sounds like a cop-out Point out where I've gone wrong.......all wise and knowing one

I agree one hundred percent with your point, but the best intrests in the case of the current adminstration seem to be to protect the United States and it's intrests through the destruction of all threats to it and the ensuing spread of democracy so these threats won't remerge in the present or future.

The dictionary defination: relevant and my defination in context with this thread are one in the same......IIRC the point of this thread was to label Bush irrelevant on the world stage. I've stated how GWB, because of his job title, is very much relevant to the worlds population. I don't claim GWB to be popular, loved, liked, and admired, but to say a man that has the power vested into him to destroy life on this planet five or six times over is irrelevant, is idoicy to an extreme. Even when GWB leaves office, his actions, both at home and abroad (right or wrong) will have touched many, many people and because of that, GWB will be remembered by his haters and supporters alike, as being an extremly relevant person for the beginning of the 21st century........I've no doubt in my mind that GWB's mark will be lasting on the world for many decades to come. WRT China becoming a future threat/advirsay, I don't discount your point, but if it will (or should) surpase the United States is another debate.

Why would "Shia partisans in Iraq" need to be moblized? They make-up the majority in the government......... So, if you are an Iranian, facing the possablity of being attacked by the United States, you feel that America is irrelevant to your person? In the end, it goes comes back (in the great scheme of things) to which nation/camp/allience, right or wrong, is most relevant to the world? Do pay more attention to the nation that makes be threats/statements and doesn't follow through on them, or the person that makes big threats/statements and does follow through on them? You said yourself, the only difference between the United States and France/Russia/China is that the United States has the ablity to carry out it's objectives and others don't........Who to fear? Who is more relevant to the World?

For what it's worth, Egypt is going to allow an oppostion in their next election..... Egypt announces democratic reform As has Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia to hold democratic elections Both nations have far to go, but it is a start......funny that the pressure is coming form the Bush adminstration in both cases. Do you think Canada doesn't look out for it's own intrests first? Or any country for that mater?

But the Iraqi government did fall rather fast.......it's the various insurgent groups and personnal miltias the Americans have been fighting for the majority of their time in Iraq. The end goal for the Americans (no Iranian nukes) is a rather realistic one to achieve.......the part of toppling the Iranain government is just speculation on my part, as being the next logical step. Who's to say they (and Syria) are not already? Exactly. But to get back on topic, do you think that GWB/POTUS/the United States is irrelevant to the region? to the World?

I disagree, since any Israel involvement would most likely end the Palestianain peace talks.......nah, this will be all America.......unless israel was attacked first. What makes you so sure? Can the Iranian government rule from spider holes, with all their infrustruce knocked out? With that said, after the nuke facilties are knocked out, IMHO, I'd think the Iranian government would back down with it's tail between it's legs...... I honestly don't think the Americans/Israels will allow Iran to aquire nukes in the end....I guess we will have to wait and see......

And I gave you my answer, which is I beleive the same as GWB. If you want to know my personnal prediction, I'd say after the European diplomatic efforts fail (which I'm sure they will), the United States will go to the UN seeking trade restrictions (ie embargo) on Iran. Then when the UN route is vetoed by Russia (or France or China), you will see an ultimatum given by the United States to Iran (akin to what was given to Iraq), then when the deadline passes (which it will) you will see "Shock and Awe two", which will succede in taking out the Iranian nuke sites. After that, the next move will be decided by the Iranian government.......with their choices being: 1. Stay in power (for the time being), agreement to international inspectors, stop funding terror groups and agree to democratic reforms -OR- 2. "Shock and Awe three", which will see the decapitation of the Iranain government and miltary leadership. After that, the miltary can choose to stand down, and allow progressive, democratic Iranian elements to set-up a new elected government. If the military doesn't choose this option, they would be pummeled into submission by the American airforce and special forces, and perhaps limited amounts of regular, conventional forces............. By ordeal, I mean Iran developing nuclear technology.........which as I pointed out, is far from over. Here's the first two: Here's a new one: If Iran's goal is to develop and build nuclear technolgoy and the Russian's goal is to aid them in this venture, in contrasted with the American goal, which is to prevent this from happening, who in the end, do you think will achieve their goals? Russian backed Iran or the United States?

After GWB's statement last tuesday, I go along with what he said.......All options are on the table. Perhaps the paper deal, but the entire Iranian nuclear ordeal is far from over........ As GWB said himself, all options are on the table. How is GWB "newly irrelevant"? Have you refuted my claim that GWB has not followed through on any of his postions as of yet? Did I miss it? Did you miss my question of you? Here it is: Now since I've answered most (if not all) of your questions, would you answer mine? I'd hate to thing all you are doing around here is trolling....

What makes you think it's played out? Do you think that America and Israel will not respond? Also, can you back up your statement about the Americans being "A-OK" with the deal? Senator John McCain is already calling for the G8 to ban Russia from the next summit. What makes you think America can do "piss all" about? They could use their forces in Iraq and Afghanistain, to support a war, then reinforce their troops in the region with units from Germany and South Korea (Which the United States announaced already will begain to start coming back to the United States itself), added to countless Reserve formations and National Guard units. It's been the policy (I think made law) of the United States for decades to be able to fight two concurrent major wars and one minor war. I'd count the war in Iraq as major, and the war in A-stain as minor...... With that said, I doubt very much that the United States would even need to invade Iran......The Israels knocked out Saddam's reactors in the early 80s with a handful fighters.......I'm quite confident the Americans could scrape up some stealth bombers and some Green Berets to deal with Iran...... Would you think Saddam thought Bush bluffed him and that the "threats" (more like promises) of the Bush Administration don't come true?

So why do you complain about the government of British Columbia privatizing services? Are you now in favor of privatization?

You can't, until the entire scenario has played itself out. IOW, we will have to wait and see what the end result is......Do you think Bush/America and Israel will allow Iran to aquire nuclear weapons? But if you wish to speculate on what the outcome will be, I guess that it will be a US strike on all of Iran's nuclear sites, which will in effect make the transaction done by Russia and Iran irrelevant.