Stoker

So why not put forth my idea (only fund healthcare, fire and police when needed) and pay down the debt further?

So why don't they spend money on the military? And why do they spend money on a police force, firemen and paramedics?

Wouldn't my plan save vast amounts of money?

My house is not on fire, I'm not being attacked by a person at this moment and I'm not having a heart attack..........I want all my tax dollars back that go towards the local fire department, RCMP detachment and the BC Amblulance service. With that said, the moment my house is on fire, I'm being attacked and I'm having a heart attack, then I want at that instance to start paying, thus start receiving the service. Infact, I think the entire country should work like that. Let's save money by getting rid of the trained professionals, and only pay for them when we need them.......... Well I'm having a heart attack, I'm sure we can just "spit out a doctor" when we need one

??? Who was the Prime Minister in 1987? Now go read the 1987 defence white paper. WRT vancouver being a nuclear free zone..........so? Victoria and Halifax are not, thats all that would really mater Do you think having the ablitiy to allow our surface fleet and maritime aircraft the ablitiy to train against a deadly threat to any nation that relys on the oceans, is not a good idea?

I know that, never said otherwise. What I did say, was that the Conservatives during the cold war wanted nuke boats over SSKs. Possably, but not without mods. I'd think so, since the Americans can launch nuclear armed tomahawks from their sub's torpedo tubes, and we use a version of the same torpedo as the Americans (mk 48). I'm not 100% though.

You live back east right? Any of the nuclear power plants out there have nuclear weapons in them?

Yeah, well why? One of our three oceans can't be patroled for the majority of the year, and the said ocean is looking to be resource rich. Also, nuclear subs (armed with Tomohawk crusie missiles) would afford our navy and armed forces with a true expediontary capability. WRT the cost.......me thinks that would have been factored in Who said anything about nuclear weapons? As I said Newf.........let's wait until the investigation has been completed.

The conservatives wanted to buy more capable nuclear subs of the Americans/British/French.

And what was the major problem before the fire? Flooding in the torpedo room. We, as in Canada, changed the torpedo room (and tubes) around so they could accomodate our old torps from our old subs......instead of buying new torps, torps that the Upholders/Victorias were designed for. We also put the (electrial) fire control system (a computer used to shoot the torpedos in a war) from our old subs into these subs, and took the orginal system designed for the subs out. If you change the engine in your car, well it's still under warentry, if something goes wrong, are you still covered? Sheesh.......the bloody thing could have been caused by a 19 year old kid that was rushed through training , due to our undermanned and underfunded military. As I said, we should wait until there has been an investigation into the mater..........and remeber, every finger you point, there are three pointing back at yourselves.

Does anybody have proof as of yet the the fault lies with the United Kingdom/Royal Navy/the Subs themselves? Has the Human factor been ruled out? Our Sub crew training has been rushed over the last few years........ Perhaps we should wait until an investigation has been concluded until we start pointing fingers.

You forgot Reagan.........I guess you could add Eastwood also.

Kerry/Edwards trade enforcement paper

Wasn't federal government funding also offered? Yes, but ultimately we will have fast transit from downtown Vancouver to the airport. Now I use to live in Van, an boy oh boy, anything that will help relive the traffic congestion between south Vancouver and Richmond is a good thing. IOW the Campbell government (and the feds) are giving hundreds of millions of dollars to translink to help improve congestion near a major crossing of the Fraser river. Same can be said about the Port Mann project....... Hell lets have a look at this: Translink ten year paln -Expand the reach of the rapid transit network by 40 per cent -Expand the bus fleet by one-third with the addition of 400 new buses, and upgrade the existing 1300 vehicle transit fleet. -Improve the Major Road Network through eight new road projects, plus a new Fraser River crossing. - Add two new stations to the West Coast Express and introduce more TrainBus service. -Add a third Seabus vessel to serve the North Shore and Vancouver by 2004. -U-Pass Program and Service Expansion -Cycling Improvements So whats the problem? When was the last time you have been on a ferry? Being an Islander that use to work and live in Vancouver, and still has many friends and family living on the mainland, I feel safe to say that BC Ferries today is a stark contrast to what they were as a crown corporation, for the better. What unions has he killed or come close to killing? And whats wrong with encouraging corporations to locate in BC? Whats better for the "working man", having a job or not having a job?

What would/is the NDP's strategy? Build some ultra fast cats to ford the Fraser (built in BC yards of course.). Wasn't 100s of millions of dollars offered by the Campbell government for the RAV line, but to only have the project voted down by local city councils? And isn't Translink incharge of Transit? Not the Campbell government......... What was the NDP's strategy a few years ago when they were in government?

Just-like-that? How were American troops supposed to capture OBL when he buggered off into Pakistain, when they had no access into the country? I wonder how many (union) Canadians will lose their jobs if kerry/edwards win, then implement their protectionist policies.

War on terror = Money spent How many Icebergs has the NDP hit?

Slavik44, did you factor in the different tax laws with in each country? Or that perhaps many Canadian billionaires up and leave Canada because of the said tax laws? Or that American billionaires had the opportunities to reinvest in their native country, and succeed? Perhaps even the two nations immigration laws, in that one of the nations accepts more "poor immigrents"/refugages than the other nation, thus deluding the average income? But to get back on topic.......... As has been proven, in most "economic areas" that been brought up, the United States leads Canada. Now my point has been, that if you were to ask the average Canadian how they thought their economy was doing, the majority would not paint as bleak of a picture, as those that claim the American economy is in dire straights, when infact, the American economy is in better shape (in the areas we talked about) then ours. So again, what iceberg?

Canada GDP - per capita: $ 29,800 America's GDP - per capita: $ 37,800 No, I chose (as with the United States) the latest full years figures, which are last years. I would have listed this years numbers, but we still have three months to go With that said, you allued to the fact that Canada had an "off year" (SARS, Mad Cow, etc), thus shouldn't be counted when comparing Canada/US economies. Now you don't seem to mind speaking of the "off year" the Americans had, and you were quick to lay blame on President Bush, instead of the 19 hijackers. Have you ever heard the saying, "whats good for the goose is good for the gander"? It's not? Oh, ok......well then: Canada's Unemployment rate: 7.8% (2003) America's Unemployment rate: 6% (2003) Now the latest figures I've heard about the American unemployment rate, is that it's at or below 5.6%, which is lower then the average unemployment rate from the 90s, 80s and the 70s...........I'm not sure what Canada's current unemployment rate is at.

Whats yours then?

Please explain further. Where did I say "offensives", plural? With that said, as I said in the post above, this was a major offensive, led by the new Iraqi army, with the United States in support. Backlash? From who? The terrorists? Thats expected What do think the alternative is? America pull out, and the Iraqi army/government fold it's collective tent? Do you think less civilians will be killed and injured if Iraq is run as a theocracy? Another dictator? Bring back Saddam? Or do you think less civilians will be killed and injured if Iraq falls into a bunch of small tribal states controlled by local warlords? No, I think yours are. Here's the numbers again: Canada's GDP - real growth rate: 1.7% America's GDP - real growth rate: 3.1% Now I only took math until grade 11, but unless the very principles of math have changed, 3.1 is larger than 1.7 3.1 > 1.7 I used last years numbers If you wish, I'll post 2004s complete numbers in the new year Well since you say that is so likely, you should have no problem posting some figures to back up your "claim". I showed you mine, you show me yours. Define better. If you mean better as in safer, then yes.

Backlash from Iraq war? major offensive in Samarra Here we have one of the major offences of the war, with the Iraqis doing the Lion's share of the work, with the Americans in a supporting role........with this being only a stepping stone towards a planned offensive in Fallujah and other town in the Sunni triangle. What blacklash can come from the Iraqis starting to fight for their own freedom? As for their economy........well let me put it to you this way, do think our economy is in good health? Canada's GDP growth rate: 1.7% America's GDP growth rate : 3.1% So what Iceberg?

And what Iceberg is that?

Let's say the US does just that, what happans when the terrorists no longer want the United States in a country that seeks the help of the Uinited States? What happans when OBL doesn't want Americans in America?

So which British King or Queen "ordered" it is that you ( and the people of Quebec?) have their back up over? George III ? George IV ? William IV ? Victoria ? Bakunin, I know you put alot of work into that post, but I still want to know why we need a change?