Stoker

In all the cases that you mentioned, what would have you done different?

Yes, and if the authorites thought my behaviour to be suspect, I'd exhaust all means to prove my innocence. You have source to back up your claim? Well we could also define "Serious resistance" as "inadequate cooperation".......... What are you talking about? I don't fault anybody for looking out for themselves first.

If you are concerned about "cheaper", why are you against buying European ships? Exactly, and perhaps the Union members who represent the workers at Victoria shipyards will understand that paying labourers over twenty bucks an hour to push a broom around is going to cost them work.

Let's put the horse before the cart.........the only reason that some could interpret the West as "spoiled children" is because it's a reaction to the East/Liberal government that thinks by giving the west a big "treat" in the form of a few members in cabinet, we will forgot decades of mistreatment.

What did we win? Who said we were crying? I'm hoping mad....the only tears I'll be crying are those of joy, when the West is a soverign nation. Exactly, and what will happen to these "western savours" if they try to voice more western views and Martin doesn't buy it? Left out of what.......a corrupt government? You want some "facts, some statistics, something with some substance to it", open your eyes and look the hell around you..........perhaps the next logical progression will be some sort of "western sponsorship program" to tell us how good we have it to have a "big brother" like Ottawa to look out for us. The net result to the federal liberals (as put best on tonight news) is that they won't gain any progress in the West and they will lose support in Ontario........ Piss on Martin and his proverbial cookie that he has bestowed onto the West!

If I'm on probation and have a no drinking order, but I have just a little to drink, am I breaking the law? It's black or white.......they either provided proof or they didn't provide proof.......and they didn't. Simple as that. Define "serious resistance". Would you consider holding up inseptors, and most importantly not providing proof that could back up your claim, and not even that, providing proof that could exonerate you completly, to be "serious resistance"? Who said we were finished the "real" war on terror? It's still ongoing in many places, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but the entire world Did you miss the speach Bush gave "on the hill" just after 9/11? You are either with us or against us, Iraq was against us.

If they found "no indications of WMD", why did they want an extension and more importantly, why did the Iraqis refuse to provide proof that the WMDs had been destroyed? As for your second point: If Bush had of choosen not to go into Iraq, and say in 2005 eastern US and Canadian cities were gased by Iraqi WMDs in the hands of terrorists, would you not be jumping on Bush for not preventing this when he had the chance? {see preemption}

To what? Do you have proof? A UN report perhaps? And what proof did they give the UN and US? Then why would he (Martin) say terrorists now have access to Iraqi WMDs if all the Iraqi WMDs were destroyed? Doesn't add up, so please feel free to explain.....and use some sort of proof please.

Who was that? I brought up the "over here/there" statement.........but never said I wasn't concerned, just that I have more concern with my own well being first, before say India's struggles with the Tamal Tigers. If Iraq had of destroyed their WMDs, why didn't they provide proof? All that was needed was the location so that scientists could conduct soil surveys and the like to prove that infact they were destroyed........Wouldn't that have been a better option for Saddam? WRT your second point........Blah Blah Blah......that's so 1980s Everyman and his dog knows that the west gave Iraq (and Iran) chemical weapons to fight each other....whats that have to do with Iraq not getting rid of them when they were suppose to? Did he or did he not use Saddam's Iraq as an example in the above quote? WRT to country being denuded by selling weapons.......that the biggest load of BS I've heard in quite a while.........Would you say the United States or China have been denuded due to their sales of arms? If you don't "give a darn what Martin has to say", why were you so quick to defend him?

I've read it several times. Define "much". Is "much" enough to kill everbody on the Eastern seaboard or just New York? Back to the Martin Quote: Was Saddam once the leader of Iraq? So wouldn't it stand to reason that any WMDs Saddam had, since they would have been procured with Iraqi money, could be called Iraqi WMDs? If my father gave me a shotgun as a gift for my birthday, then years later I used it in a crime, would he be guilty? Now if America gave Iraq WMDs or the means to make WMDs, are they guilty if Iraq used them? One more question, how do you get from "the terrorists have access to all that", in a sentence refering to Saddam Hussein as an example, to what you call "general proliferation"? Paul Martin wasn't using say Iran or North Korea as an example, but Saddam's Iraq. The same country that you and others claim either didn't have WMDs or didn't have "very many" or "not much" if you will, of the "not really bad kind of WMDs" (What would those be I wonder? Mustard Gas perhaps?) Where did I say I'm not concerned with what goes on "over there"? Again, where did I say I'm not concerned with what goes on "over there"?

By all means clarify.........I read a quote by Paul Martin that says: "that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists have access to all that" Weapons that Saddam had.......got it we don't know where they are.....really Duh so that means the terrorists have access to all that......very scary indeed. The Three points of the quote: 1. Weapons that Saddam had 2. we don't know where they are 3. so that means the terrorists have access to all that I understand very well what Martin said, whats your problem? Let's not mince words here........before 9/11 terrorism was something that happend "over there".......after 9/11 it has become something that can and has happend "here". I, like most, care more about "here" then "over there"........worry about what affects you first I say.

Depends what we did............If say we threatened to shut off Quebec Hydro shipments to New York state in the middle of winter.......who's knows what they would do. As for having the "rest of the world on our side", what good would that do against a determined United States? *note* I don't think any of this will/would happen mind you. Why? A large portion of Americans don't think Bush to be a "dumbass" and a large portion of Americans don't think Kerry to be a "dumbass". Instead of feeling sorry for Americans, start expressing empathy towards the people of Quebec and Western Canada. I guess it depends who you ask.......

I provided a news source, you claim it to be wrong, so prove it.......... But to humor you: The Globe and Mail Paul Martin, may 10th 2004. I gave another source, so you now prove that my first one is false.

So are you now saying that a well known news agency is lying. Do you have an proof to say that Canoe is misquoting Paul Martin?

Caesar, click here The date was May 11, 2004..........as for the reason you just heard about it now, it's the Liberal bias in the majority of the media (Minus Global, and looky who broke the storey)......stop watching the CBC.........christ, and to think, we could have a Conservative government right now (due to vote splitting in Ontario between the NDP and Libs) if more people watched Kevin Newman

You should Email it to Mad Jack Layton also.......could have got more seats in Ontario I'm take comfort in knowing that Martin atleast has an understanding that the world is not a nice place and the value of politicking with the United States.......it's not Harper, but atleast he's not a Layton or Jean.

Of course he is using past tense When Martin said the above quote, Saddam was in jail.......I doubt anybody thought that Saddam brought VX nerve gas into Jail up his bum Please stop with the spinning........I'm going to puke

So eureka and caesar, what about that Paul Martin quote and his stance on Iraqi WMDs?

Paul Martin quote

See above ^ I notice the media never really blew this story up during the "election of fear"..........No Liberal bias you say?

Here you go caesar: Martin and Iraqi WMDs Break out the Tin-foil hats

In terms of GDP, the United Kingdom's spending is aligned with that of the NATO average, which we very much are skirting. Should I get out my tin foil hat? You must be smoking some good dope to think that our School system, Healthcare system and military are "doing quite fine". WRT leaving Canada, as I made clear in another thread (for fear of going off topic), I'm more then willing to wait until Quebec goes in the next few years, then start looking at the West leaving. Who do you suggest we replace the vast majority of our trade with then? WRT softwood lumber and Mad Cow, it's all on the wheel......we don't play ball with their issues, why should they play ball with us on our issues?

This is a good part: When Frugal Isn’t Smart

Perhaps you should go read this MS: Senate report Go educate yourself, I dare you.

Perhaps you should go and serve, then get back to us about how peachy keen the current state of the Canadian Forces are. For the job they do, I see it as criminal how they have been treated for the last 30+ years. As for going down to the States, no amount of Canadian immigrants to the United States will better the US/Canada relationship..........{see Vietnam} Who is trying to turn Canada into a police state? The two federal parties both understand that the forces are on life support and need to be saved (one party more then the other). As for your second paragraph, I see that you like many other Canadians are either ignorant of history or just don't care, based on that attitude. If we had of had a larger professional miltiary at the onset of the great wars and Korea, the number of Canadian's killed wouldn't have been as large due to the fact that they wouldn't be "learning on the job". No fear mongering, just fact.