Stoker

The best policy is to just not "feed the trolls" Oh, and take notice of my quote

Where does a rather large percentage of the United States get it's energy needs from? What about Fresh water? manufactored goods? Do you still discount the fact that an attack on Canada, is almost as good as an attack on the united States proper? On the flip side, as I pointed out many times in this debate, Canada doesn't need to be directly attacked to be affected by an attack on the United States, both physically and in terms of economics. You live in the lower mainland right? Did you know that just a hop, skip and jump past Blaine, the United States has one of the worlds largest nuclear weapons bases? To say nothing about several other navy bases, an army base, the port of Seattle, and Seattle proper?

Since you are having a problem understanding me, I'll from here on out, for your benefit, type very slow....... WRT initiatives and requests, I'll point to Iraq and the war on terror in the cases of all the nations I mentioned......... I'll also add, in the case of Japan, the reworking of their laws to allow the Japenese to take a more "pro-active" role on the world scene, namely the potentail of growing hostilites with China over Taiwan and North Korean nuclear prolifaration. I think you are a very confused lad........how does America's responce to 9/11 disprove that Canadians are not cowards? What would the Canadian responce had of been? What was the nations mood after a handful of soldiers died in Afghanistain? I hope you respect the sights rules when you respond......... Again, how does this disprove ft.niagara's points on Canada?

I think the Bush administration would have prefered Canada to be onboard, but it was not critical........tell me, if we had of signed on to BMD, what would have been different to the overall system? IMHO, the Clinton and Bush administrations offered Canada to take part in BMD as a courtesy in part due to the fact that we are a part of NORAD. Can I ask, what leads you to think Bush is a moron? If Bush is a moron, what does that make the people that are not, will not and have not become POTUS? I notice though, you don't disput the fact that Bush means what he says.......good on yeah

What has GWB "screwed himself" on? With PM PM saying no to BMD, will this put the entire project in jeopardy? Will it now fail because Canada is not taking part? Don't you think it to be a "breath of fresh air" for a politican like GWB to be open about his policies? Right or wrong, we know where he stands on the issue.....to be honest, I can't think of a policy in which he hasn't made his stance on the issue clear. I see GWB's remarks in Halifax as giving PM PM a chance to be clear and honest with Canadians and Americans on the Liberal governments stance on BMD.......PM PM failed on all accounts

But he has had support for his "initiatives and requests".......Are you suggesting that the likes of the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, Japan etc are irrelevant? Or were they bribed and/or threatend? If yes, can you prove it? Now again, the countries that you claim feel that GWB is irrelevant to are themselves irrelevant to United States and it's coalition. Now this begs the question, which one of these "sides" is the most relevant to the world itself? The one that achieves it's objectives, or the one that fails. The proof is simple.......who's end game was acheived? Starting to get the picture?

How does that make Bush irrelevant? Do you think Canada won't be affected by this? Has our refusal detered GWB form carrying on with deploying BMD? They didn't need us on BMD, as made evident by them not asking for money or Canadian soil to help deploy the system........Do you think GWB is losing sleep over the fact that Canada "won't let" America defend us....did you read Paul Cellucci's responce? Paul Cellucci responce Yes, PM PM responce had the desired effect Which of the two leaders has been made irrelevant over BMD? And what has been the result of GWB "being ignored"? Has it detered him in any way from carrying out his foregin and Domestic policies? WRT the world stage, can you honestly say that Germany, France, Russia, China and the UN (and their leaders) are still relevant? They opposed the American led war in Iraq.......Of the two opposing camps, who's end game was achieved and who's was lost? The loser(s) and their leaders are the ones that are irrelevant.

Interceptor shoots down missile in test What great timing PM PM has. Bravo!!! Then again, Aegis (the sea based componet of BMD) has been opreating for decades......... Good point, but to be honest, did you ever expect PM PM to follow through on BMD? The answer is quite simple, when a member of the Liberal party says something (Like how PM PM supported BMD during the Liberal leadership race), one should always expect the opposite to be the true end result. The guy I feel the most for is Bill Graham, due to the fact that he stuck his neck out so far in support of BMD last fall.........anybody see this poor bastard on "Politics" the other day.....If he had any balls, he would resign as MND after being made to look the fool. (added to the demotion to MND) Opting out of missile defence could alter Norad: ex-general Forget my right-wing bias, but the Cons do make a good point......"if nothing is going to change" (WRT NORAD), what did we say no to? I'll strap on my Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie for a moment and wonder......did we actually say No to BMD? Did we argee last summer, and this big media circus is for the benift of parliament and the Canadian public, with PM PM's "responce" being taliored to suite public opinion? Perhaps this thread should now be merged with the "trade war thread"......... Canada's historic missile snub will have unpredictable consequences: analysts Looks like yet again, the west could suffer from the choices made by the Eastern "elite".....

And I hate be a "told you so" and be so vain as to quote myself but: The future unfolding I knew it would happen sooner or later......I just though it would happen later

You are way off the mark.........Good or bad, the actions (and to a lesser extent words said) done by an American President are very much relevant to the nations of the world, and because of that, GWB, (love him or hate him) is by job title, the most powerful man on the planet, which by proxy makes him ever so relevant. I fail to understand how you think that man that could end life on this planet five times over is irrelevant.......seems rather foolish and naive to me

and Have you read what the increase will look like for this year? 500 million, I believe 600 for next year no really increase intill year three.........Lew Mackienzie was on CTV and brought up the fact to Craig Oliver that he can't remeber when a Budget stayed the same over three years........ And let's say everything promise does happen, what do we get.....a small boost to the Army, at what looks like the expence of the Navy and Air Force? Smoke and Mirrors I say

Perhaps the disscussion if we should join BMD is now moot......

Exactly, but in fairness to Mr Dithers, in all honestly, if Harper or Layton (I know I know ) had of won last years election, I doubt either could have made that much of a better showing.......maybe Harper if he had of won a majority and in turn had a free hand. I think this just proves the fact that Canada (not just the Libs) are growing ever more irrelevant on the world stage....

Maybe, maybe not. I'd still like the insurance that BMD could afford us though. Definitely, by whatever mean necessary. Of course diplomacy should be the first option, but if that fails, do you favor preemption? If the diplomatic efforts made by the European nations fail in preventing Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons, would you be in favour of a 'first strike'? Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. One question though, if the United States was willing to shoulder the entire cost of R&D, and then deployment of BMD and all we where asked to provide was a handful of of extra personal to NORAD to help administer the system, would you still be opposed?

I think you may have missed my point (in this thread and others) in that these people that are opposed to the growing American influence on Canada, are the ones that are pushing us towads it. As for myself being concerend about the ever growing US influence, to be honest, no. In some aspects I'm disappointed and for the most part, I'm coming to accept it. I've had the argument many times over the pros and cons of the United States, with friends, family and other posters here and the most commone "retort" i get from the other side is "if you like it so much, why don't you just move there (USA)?"............Well if things contiune as is, and I've seen no reason that they won't, I won't have go to the States, the States will come to me.

I too don't get it Army Guy. For all the anti-Americaism and/or false Canadian nationalism which is prevalent within this country, I would think that these same people would also want to guarantee our own sovereignty, and what better way to guarantee our sovereignty then with a capable armed forces. I admit, it's beyond my understanding. I doubt that this view held by most Canadians will change untill we have been attacked directly by another nation state and/or terror group. Even then, something inside of me believes that the "Canadian" responce will be to stick our head even deeper into the sand. The only other realistic result that I see happening (perhaps as a result of my above example) is a further assimilation of the "worthy parts of Canada" (ie resources) by the United States........and the sad but true fact is that there won't be a way to stop it. It's funny, the Canadians who make the biggest deal about not being American, are most likely the ones that are sending us in the direction of becoming American.

I think this goes back to the thread about "sub-contracting out" our defence to another nation (ie. the United States), and perhaps giving some roles (ie SAR) oover to other government departments and/or private ventures. With that being said, I would only want to heed the warning of a old quote that I remeber (Ben Franklin I think) "A nation that beats it's swords into ploughshares, will eventually be ruled by the nation that didn't"

How's asking for evidence to back-up a persons wild claims an insult? I could understand how somebody would be ticked off about having their BS called, but it's not an insult.

I would suggest that the vast majority of posters do infact provide evidence in the first place or when asked. I'd even goes as far as to say that (In my own experince) that after more mapleleafweb users have gotten to know each other, and in turn respect one another, in many cases, almost a "honor system" has emerged, in that in the process of the debate, an opposing side in some instances, may not require "evidence" to accept or at the very least, be willing to debate another point of view. Respect breeds trust, trust breeds respect, simple really, and once that occurs everybody involved is able to enjoy the site and it's wide ranging points of view. I agree here in some instances, but in some cases, the best policy is to just not feed the trolls They get hungry and eventually go somewhere else.

Perhaps everyting that you post is opinion, but In My Humble Opinion, I'd say a good many posters actually try and debate, like adults, from both sides of the fence, with facts. It's a simple concept really. Imagine if a Crown prosecutor or the defence's counsel was trying to make their case to the jury with just their opinions and not a shred of evidence........ Now thats not to say that we have to take this forum as serious as a courtroom, but if we want to maintain some level of maturity when debating/yaking about current events, history, and politics etc the forum members must follow, at the very least, some form of rules and structure. I don't expect Greg to monitor the forum 24/7 and I found that when there has been a serious problem, Greg has dealt with it. With that being said, when it comes down to any given posters creditbilty WRT backing up their statements with some decent proof , I must admit, I don't think this can or should need to be moderated by Greg. (Unless it's just a plain old trolling post thats wasting bandwidth) When you think about, the quality of a person's post, most likely reflects the quality of the person (as in real life). Some people are just plain ignorant, and thats best judged by the beholder(s). The only thing I can suggest, is that each and every member treat the site as somebody elses home (Greg's?) and in turn act as if you are guest and as such can be asked to leave anytime. I've had parties and been to many parties in the past, and if I have learned only one thing, it is that it only takes a few people to ruin the said party for the majority...........

How about pee or get off the pot? Is that better?

Personal insults now eh? Have you been over the forum rules yet? Remeber though: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -Socrates-

So you are suggesting that poverty is perhaps a factor in people leaving Cuba? I never said it wasn't So since, as you suggest, poverty is a factor in Cuba, would that make it less of a "workers paradise" or a Heaven, if you will? Second page of the topic, my first post in this thread....... Stoker's first reply in this thread with proof..... Also, my first bit of supporting evidence is in no way realted to the CIA........ Why is it though, that you condemed the CIA in a responce to August and Hugo (and now me) but you use them for evidence to support your "case"?

So why did you use them for a source of reference?

What a well thought out responce, thanks for your input. Insightful as always caesar......... Well the way that I look at it Newf is that Dithers has one of two options. 1. He can go along with McGuinty and give Ontario back the 5 billion (of the 23 that Ontario contributes) and in doing so, set a dangerous precident for the federal Liberal government when it comes to dealing with other contributing provinces to equalization. Not too mention, as was recenlty proven by Ole Danny Boy, dealing with provinces that are on the cusp of becoming "have provinces" could become even more tricky. -OR- 2. Tell McGuinty to poke it, and in doing so, risk alienating Ontario voters from the Federal Liberals. Now regardless of where these potential voters go (CPC or NDP), in the end, less votes for the Liberals, equals greater prospects for the CPC, either through direct votes to the Conservaties or Left-wing vote splitting because of the NDP. Add this issue, to what looks like will be a 180 commited by PM PM on support for BMD and the recent annoucnment that Canadian soldiers will be training Iraqi's (granted likely in Jordan) for Bush's "illegal War With Iraq", and it looks more and more like the CPC is gaining ammo for possable Spring time election........