Stoker

AND AND Where did I say that the "Big Bad United States" was going to steal Iraqi Oil? Right then, what I did say: Again, whats wrong with making sure that ones intrests can flourish within a stable enviroment? Is it wrong that we, among many other nations, went to war against Iraq in 1991 so as to free Kuwait and secure Saudi Oil fields? And to dumb it down for those that need it......Would it be a bad thing if the police made a secure enviroment so a consumer can purchase goods from a merchant?

Bush's rating just went up three points......... No 'bounce' for Kerry so far Let me be clear, are you comparing the United States to Nazi germany, and by proxy Bush to Hitler? National defence. So yiu are saying that it's the lone fault of the United States that Canada is a possable terrorist target? Would you respect a person that you had to take care, not because they we're lacking an ability to care for themselves, but because they just couldn't be bothered? We don't resepct ourselves as a nation........for christ sake, we let another nation protect us, and instead of showing gratitude we return with spite and then wonder why they don't respect us........ And it will take awhile for the masses to see the full impact of a democratic nation in the "heartland" of the middle east............until that time, I rather be lead by a clear vision of the future, then by emotion. Please contect the dots........you see I don't have my tin-foil hat on So the reciprocal of your above statement, could be that the United States asked Australia to help in Iraq so a Free Trade Agreement could be worked out? I still tend to believe, and you can call me crazy, that perhaps Australia shares the same values as the United States........ How are our efforts in Afghanistan all for not? Well thats what we have been doing for the couple of decades..........If we want to get serious, we need only look at other sovergien G8 nations and see what they deem as ones own "responsibilites" and follow suit.

Of all the reasons stated by the United States for going to war with Iraq, be they WMD, removing tryany, humanitarian reasons, putting stability in a ass backwards region, etc etc..........I've yet to heard what is the problem with any of these above reasons...... I'll go even further, let's say that this war was about securing Iraq oil, on top of the other reasons.......Whats wrong with protecting every facet of ones being? Oil plays a large part of the US economy, whats wrong with protecting it?

1441 Define large numbers.........Iraq has 25 million people, I've heard the number of insurgents estimated in the thousands......... Source Now lets double that estimate, hell better yet let's say there are 25,000 insurgents in the country. What percentage is 25,000 of a nation of 25 million?

Debating over what America has done, and be it for the right or wrong reasons, is pointless because nobody is going to stop them in the near future. Now what is worth debating is what we as a nation should do. 1. We can carry on how we are and shut-up about it. 2. We could cut as many strings as possable with the United States and see where that gets us and be prepaired to take on the added responsibilities that we have aloud the States to shoulder for us for some time. 3. Take an "actions speak louder then words approach", in that we try to improve our relations with the States via taking on our own responsibilities, thus lessing their load and put into practice the old adage that respect is something that is earned, not demanded and accept the fact that if we want the United States to respect us and treat us as somewhat of an equal/client, we have as a nation have got to start respecting ourselves and act like an equal.

I'm sure the majority of people would like to not have to pay taxes or better yet, not work at all but still maintain their same standard of living, better yet, not work and have an improved standard of living........So should the government oblige? The war on terror is not just a war on Osama and his band of merry men, but all terrorism. As for the direction of their resources, though it is apperently unfathomable to some {see Canadian government} a nation should and can, with the right amount of funding, defend it's homefront and still defend it intrests overseas, hence Austrailas involment in the war on Iraq. Over a quarter of Brazil's trade is done with the United States, with the reverse not being the same. (The Brazilian mark on the United States is barley felt) So I highly doubt that Brazil is "pushing" the United States that hard. WRT the fingerprinting, I'm sure some within the US State Department are pleased with Brazils increased effort towards security. To whome are we going to diversify our trade with? As for purchasing more "made in Canada products", are you going to be the first inline to purchase a pair of Nike runners made in Ontario by a union worker for a larger price tag that reflects the "new" cost in paying wages to the North American workers? To afford all of that (and more), we will have to double our spending as a minium......remeber the ratio of defence spending Sweden has, then factor in the size of Sweden compared to that of Canada and that after the United States, most of our trading is done across an Ocean (unlike Swedens). Other then that I agree with you that we need an increased role in protecting our soverignty (with as little "help" from other nations as possable). I also agree that Canada should be a player on the world stage, and that ideally we could look after most of our intrests abroad on our own if need be. I too agree that the chances of another nation invading us are slim to none, with that said, the chances of Canada proper being attacked by terrorists is high. Also the threat of another country invading one of our intrests abroad is also very likely. So why do we have over 1500 soldiers in A-stain as opposed to 1500 members of the RCMP? I can't think of anybody that is calling for Canada to spend an equal amount of money on defence as that of the United States. What we do want though is that for Canada to spend close to the same percentage of our GDP on defence. If the United States is roughly ten times are size (in terms of economy) and they spend about 398 billion a year (CDN) on defence, we should be spending 39 billion. Now I'm not even suggesting that we need to spend that amount (though I wouldn't turn it down), I'm saying that we should be spending at the same ratio as that of Sweden and the NATO average (2.2%), which would translate into about 26 billion a year. If after I finish posting this reply, we have out here on the West coast a massive 8.2 Earthquake, to whom do you think will be flying out the majority of the rescue crews? Who flew the majority of our army to Quebec for the ice storms, or Manitoba for the floods? Who brought and is supporting our Canadian Forces to Afghanistain? Who, at no finacial cost to us, and at a great cost to themselves, are building a complex network of missiles to defend North America, which we are a very large part of? And if God forbid, we we're attacked by terrorists, who would be right there to help us out? Thats not pulling your own weight.

Probaly the same as it is to live in a "democracy" that allows the CRTC to ban FOX news from coming into my home.

They had legal justifacation, go look at the terms for the ending of the first gulf war. Do you think that dark skinned people can't handle democracy and personnal freedom?

As I've said many of times on this board, I support all the reasons for the United States going to war.......and even though I doubt I could name more then a third of the nations in the coalition of the willing without looking them up, I have the utmost respect for the nations that are taking part and probably even more respect for those nations leaders who are fighting an up hill battle so to speak. I highly doubt Blair will survive his next election, Bush's chances look to be 50/50 (or just under), Spain's leader lost his election and so on. The point is, these leaders are atleast willing to go down swinging and doing what they deem as best for their countries and make hard choices instead of "leading" by the polls. The points moot, Osama has already mentioned Canada by name as being on his hit list........it's not a mater of if we will get attacked, it's just a mater of when. You could also take into account another attack on the United States, well not directly but by proxy affect Canada. Knowing this, I'd rather Canada be supporting the US led war with total support, rather then waiting for an attack that is coming without exhausting all means possable to try and stop it........Call me what you will, but I'd rather go down swinging then with my head in the sand. Or could it be that Australian people as a whole are less ignorant to the threat posed against them by Islamic terrorists, due to the fact that they have a not so friendly nation with close to 240 million just North of them........nah, it's got to be over free trade The fact of the mater is that the United States is very much aware of it's place in the world and knows very well that it can use "economic blackmail" when it needs to.........nothing Canada (or the majority of nations) can do to change that. Didn't the softwood dispute start under Jean? I know that Canada's lack of support won't make or break the election...........my point from the start has been that Iraq is the more important of the two issues to the United States, in that by supporting the War, Canada is spending more "political capital" then the United States would be by having opened their boarders faster to Canadian beef. So I see no reason as to why the United States wouldn't have opened up to us sooner. Thats a total load of BS.......as I said before, retrenchment is not an option for Canada, we need trade to survive. So now that you have us going our seperate ways from the United States, we are going to have to start paying our own way.........no more piggy backing with the United States.....this means we have to start paying for our own defence, and do you remeber the fear mongering that happend when Harper wanted an increase of about 4 billion dollars? If we want to be neutral like a Sweden, we have to pay to defend ourselves like Sweden. In terms of GDP, we spend 1.1% on defence, well the peace loving nation of Sweden spends upwards of 2.2%. Are you prepared for Canada to double (if not more) it's defence spending so as to be able to replace lost capabilities from the United States? If your not prepaired, we need no longer carry on this topic........but if you are, I'm all ears. And I'm not being crass or flippant, I'd be willing to explore the idea of an "indepedent" Canada, but only if people understand that it's going to cost alot more money for Canada to start being treated as an equal nation that pulls it's own weight. You don't need to kneel if you are an equal.....

I've got a better idea then possably punishing tradesmen and the like that need a pick-up or even those that just want an SUV. Instead of raising taxes on the purchase of these cars/trucks/SUVs and/or that of Gas, let's stay with the status quo. Now where my idea is different, instead of forcing a negative change on people, let's instead bring forth a possable positive choice. Let's offer zero sales tax on the purchase of "green vehicles", tax rebates for companies that purchase "green fleets", all government fleets to be green and allow green vehicles to drive in the HOV lanes without restrictions.

.........Or we could have supported them on Iraq. They didn't want our troops or money, just our "moral support" and the ablitiy to add us to the "coalition of the willing" roster..........Hell, after the United Kingdom, we could have fought for "third place" with Australia......no doubt we would have been ahead of Poland and the Marshall Islands Sure did. I'd say that our relationship with the States probably started going down hill since the mid 60s. And during that period, when was the only time that you could say that Canada and the States had a good relationship? When Mulroney was being buddy buddy with ole Ronnie Ray Guns.........It's true you do catch more flies with honey then with piss and vinager. I too don't want to be flippant, but come November, if Bush loses the election, which do you think will play a larger role with his possable defeat, Iraq or Cattle? They do already..........We as Canadians can either tell them to shove it and see how far that gets us or, we can swallow some of our false pride and come to understand that half a loaf is better than none and that when one is in Rome, it is advised that one does as the Romans do (or want).

So where is the line drawn? Does the United States have to take the first punch to the head? How do you know that they are not ready for it?

Stupidity? Thats not a reason, it's a personal trait. Oil? So that's why Gas is so cheap right now and the Iraqi people are not even close to finally starting to "reap the benefits" of their natural resources. Strategic military control? I agree with this one to an extent.......totally if it was worded better.......but this has also been pumped out by the white house. Ala turn Iraq into a "bastion of democracy" in the heart of the middle east......So I ask, whats wrong with that? Do you think that brown people can't handle democracy? And whats wrong if both the Iraqis and Americans benefit from a free Iraq? Iraqis get freedom and Americans get stability in an area that was once Bass Aackwards.........Whats the big deal?

caesar, do know what the word Debate means? Willy has "matched" your "side" with facts to support his case (and deflate yours), now it's your turn to try and do likewise with facts........Put up or shut-up.....or we might just have to find a bridge for you to live under

Do you think Canada will be better off with two protectionists like Kerry and Edwards?

Let's say Canada did support the Iraq war.......What do you think the reaction would have been within the white house? Positive or negative? So let's fast forward to summer time. We find a case of BSE. Everybody, including the States closes their boarders to Canadian beef. After all the associated herds have been tested and given a clean bill of health, uncle Sam remembers his big pal up North that is supporting the war in Iraq and makes sure to not drag his feet on opening the boarder to Canadian beef once it's proven to be safe. Now is the above scenario out of the question? What do you think mean more to the Bush administration, the War on terror/Iraq (and bringing more countries onboard with it) or some ranchers lobby groups? EDIT Forgot to address this part : No I'm not suggesting anything like that....what I'm saying is that we need the United States more then they need us. Added to the fact that since the United States is the world's only Superpower, they get to decide the "house rules". Any form of trade "protest" that we might try on the United States, well it might sting them, will most likely do more damage to us. Like the saying goes, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.........

I now you didn't support the invasion.......thats not in question. What is in question is the following quote: You say that it has nothing to do terrorist here. The here you go onto say that it had nothing to do with WMDs: So I ask you, what did Bush go to war for? What made Bush risk being reelected this Fall? Why did Bush use "lies, fraudulent, forged or irrelevant" facts to go to War? What do you think his reason was for? All of them and if you go back to Nov of 2002, you can read all of the reasons for yourself. The only thing that has changed wrt America's reasons, has been the focus by the media and those opposed to the War/Bush on only individual reasons. Another question for yeah caesar......speaking of looted Iraqi nuclear facilities.......Since it's been proven that Iraq had/has no real need for commercial nuclear power due it's vast oil reserves, to what reason then did Saddam need to research nuclear technology?

What Happend first? 1. Canada refuses to take part in Iraq -OR- 2. United States closes boarder to Canadian beef As for the rest of your post........Have you ever heard of the right of might?

You said that the war has NOTHING to do with terrorists and that it has nothing to do with WMDs.......so what do you think the War was fought over? I'm sticking with the United States's reasons, what are yours? And This Story? Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility As I said, Iraq didn't have nuclear power plants for power generation..........ask yourself, why would an oil rich country spend money on nuclear power? Now nuclear research facilities are a different story........ Map of Nuclear Power Reactors

Please tell what the war was for then........... Are you making things up again? Iraq doesn't or didn't have nuclear power plants...... remember they have oil........you know the black stuff that Bush is "stealing" from them It's a moot point. We didn't have troops to send last year, and we don't have the troops to send now and with us just reportedly commiting to staying on with ISAF until 2008, we won't have troops in the near future for Iraq.

So they will by our natural resources you say? Ok, what about our manufactured goods? Or is that sector of our economy not important? But back to your original point: If China was "becoming one of the largest importers of primary materials in the world", why are they not currently purchasing vast sums of Canadian resources? If replacing the United States with China was possable, don't you think that past Liberal governmnet would have done that?

Do you have a link to one or two of these experts? I wasn't talking about the American cow. You do if you want to maintain some resemblance of creditablity with your posts. Sticks and stones may brake my bones....... I've been saying that it's been POLITICAL since the start The reason being the States is not doing us the "favor" of opening their boarders to our beef (or the way they reacted to the SARS crisis or softwood lumber) is the POLITICAL reaction to us not supporting them in Iraq.

What are we going to sell to China that they don't already produce? 30 million you say? Last year Canada made upwards of 370 Billion dollars in exports....... About 87% of that figure is made from trade with the United States......you do the math Who is the largest importer of oil? Sorry, but we do. If it wasn't for the United States, Canada would be at best a second world nation.

Thats brilliant........I've got credit card debts (like most people), but that doesn't mean that I want another persons debts on top of that. And wasn't the Cow found in the States born in Alberta? Perhaps not to you, but it sure does to the Americans and if there were American born cattle with BSE found in Canada, it sure would mater to me. I'm sorry, but your going to have to provide proof to back-up your "claims". First off, the Canadian cow did go to a rendering plant : Fact, not rhetoric As for the rest, let's see some facts first.

Who?