Stoker

.....or at the very least, push the people of Ontario away from the Liberal government? Could McGuinty's demand for 5 billion dollars to be returned to the province of Ontario from the Feds, help the Conservaties, if the Federal Libs refuse? Does this play into the leanings of the CPC (and the Bloc for that mater) of more controls being granted to the provinces?

On the Subject of who's "full of it".......remeber this post of yours? That was priceless.......talking about the crediablity of the CIA, then using their numbers

Already posted a link a page or two back I don't know, perhaps you should start a topic on it........this one is about Cuba Agian, we are talking about Cuba.........do you have evidence to suggest that "many" Cubans become "disapointed" once they reach America? Of the two of us caesar, who has problems supplying proof to their arguments?

Let's see some numbers......... I'll throw out thirty two and half million. (as in Canadians) Where did I say it was "OK"? Any nation needs to "triage" it's nations wealth. The Defence of Canada (as a whole) takes priority over the homeless. Who did I exclude? When I said Canadians, I was refering to all thirty two and a half million ~ of them. Where did I imply any such thing? I don't understand the question.......are you implying that, with force, the government (?) took all the homeless peoples pop bottles, squeegees and cardboard signs to give to the people of the recent Asian disaster? I thought the homeless had little to nothing to take? What rights are being violated? The right to have a healthy welfare check perhaps? No, shelter is a very important issue to an individual, but that individual should provide it for themselves. This is not societies responsablity. With that being said, a fair and just society can choose to help ease the burden of the poor with taxpayers money, but that should only be done once more pressing maters are takin care off. I've no problem with it. Who's forcing these people out? What are their reasons? Can you name an instance or two? You didn't answer the question. If people learned accountability, they wouldn't be thrown out of their homes, onto the street, then their wouldn't be a need for the government dole. So it's not a human right for banks and/or landlords to recieve their monthly payments from their tenats and customers? So taxes are violation of human rights? My God, we agree..........but how are we going to pay for all the soup kitchens and shelters of yours? I've come to the conclusion that after you respond, you should go and give your computer to a homeless bum.

Are you suggesting that the CPC (and by proxy, CA and PC) have not had succes under Harper?

Prove it! Or at the very least, make an attempt to. Piss or get off the pot.......

These are your words right? Prove it! All you have to do is use the above http:// button, then cut and paste the web address from your link and place it in the above "explorer user prompt" (which appears after you press the http:// button), then press ok. After that, another prompt will appear but you can ignore it by pressing Ok......then contiune with your post. Yes. I'd rather be a poor black person in the States than a poor black person in a war torn African nation. Thats said, I fail to see the point of this line of thinking...... So in a nut (no pun) shell, you think the Cuban boat people are risking their lives becase: 1. They are from the former "ruling class". 2. They are being "tricked" by the Americans to come to Cuba, to hurt Castro. 3. The ones that do come, are only white. Now again, can you prove any of your claims? You cast a blanket statement, but refuse to back it up.....whats that suppose to lead people intrested in this thread to think? That being said, I don't discount that some Cubans are political refuges, that some have dreams of political prosparity and that some Cuban boat people are infact white........

Then how can you say: To this right-wing nut, that looks like a contradiction..... ........the same people that picked Harper will also help to decide the party policy........wrt the public, would you say that the "public's perception' of the CPC improved, under Harper, when compared to the CA under Day and the PC under Clark?

Can you define the CPC's "position and ideals"? In all likelyhood, some members of the CPC might see Harper as a moderate and some might even think of him as "progressive" (soft). Judging by the result of the vote held by CPC members, I'd say Harper represents the "positions and ideals" of the majoriy of Conservatives..........if he didn't, Belinda or Tony would be leading the party.

IOW.......a leader more Liberal? I fail to understand why some can't make the conection: Harper = Conservative Conservative Party = Conservative positions and ideals Is that too great a leap?

Exactly. After the two parties merged (and Harper won the leadership) the expected that it would require at least two federal elections to form a government. In all honesty, if you went back to this time last year, would you have predicted a Liberal minority and the Tories holding onto 99 seats? I sure as hell wouldn't have.

Can you prove any of that? Nah

Don't forget, a pinch of Socred for spice

I think you may have misunderstood me.........instead intend, I should have put prepaired to. IOW, a nation that builds nukes, should be prepaired to use them.......if not, why have them? Do you believe that North Korea would never use theirs? So? We both agree that, if pressed, a nuclear nation would use their nukes, right? So how does that take away from the value of BMD? BMD will negate or at the very least, severly reduce the value of any aspiring, third world nation with an ICBM program. North Korea and Iran's programs are one in the same: Taep'o-dong 2 Why's that? How many Billions of dollars is Los Angles worth? What about San Fransico? Seattle? The Americans obviously think the cost of BMD is less than the loss of one or more of it's west coast cities..... In Dollar terms, whats Vancouver and Victoria worth? How much (in dollar terms) of the BMD program do the Americans want us to shoulder? I've read little to none, what about you? The left-wing threat that BMD will start another arms race........ How is your above quote disproving my stance that the Russians and Chinese have nothing to worry about when it comes to BMD? It's also worth pointing out, the Soviets/Russians have had a a anti-ballistic missile system deployed since the 70s..........A-135 / ABM-3 Where is the uproar from the left over this?

Sure they would.......whats the point of building them if you don't intend to use them? I've no doubt in my mind that if pressed. the United States and the USSR would have used theirs during the cold war. It doesn't mater what the overall numbers of ICBMs in the world are (such as during the cold war), what mater is who has them. I've never stated that the threat of a nuclear terror attack on the States is isn't larger than the threat of a missile strike, with that being said, that doesn't make it prudent to discount other threats to ones self. I try and fend off both attackers to the best of my ablity.........honestly, I'm 6'5 and about 280... The same can be said for the United States, they are a big "goon" (like myself) and have the inherit ablitiy to, at the very least, make a valiant attempt to defend themselves from all threats posed against them. Really? I'm flattered. Another strawman !!! Two in a row........Wow. As has already been proven, both China and Russia have been developing long range missiles for decades.......Granted this is in reponce to precieved American and Soviet aggression......but in reality, BMD has no really bearing on either of these nations, it's simple mathematics......both countries have larger missile arsenals then the United States planned deployment of interceptors. Any talk coming out of the Iron and/or Bamboo curtain is just that.

And you have missed the reality........only one nuclear armed "rogue" nation is required to inflict serious economic and phyiscal damage on the United States and by proxy the rest of world that trades with the United States. It is the point, it was you that has claimed (in this thread or another) that the threat ICBMs pose is very little to none and that future threats will be cruise missiles and suitcase nukes. This illustrates that long range missiles technology is still a viable and progressive threat, hence BMD. In the words of you......Strawman As we have both concluded, as I'm quite sure the Chinese and Russians have, BMD is not a threat to them. As for the "other countries", I'm sure the United States would welcome an "arms race" with the likes of a third world despot..........The Soviets couldn't do......I doubt Kim Jong can.

Exactly, and diplomacy and containment didn't prevent poliferation........whats to say it will in the future? So you concede that the current nuclear nations are still developing long range missiles? And no one has stoped developing the capability. After looking back, it wasn't you who implied it........my bad. Ahh, but do you think not pulling out of Kuwait, when threatend with force was prudent? But do you think that actual act of deploying missiles was smart?

I'm not talking about arms reductions, I'm talking about poliferation. No, I asked which nuclear nations are not developing long range missiles, knowing full well all are. You provided a list of five nations and I added three more. IOW, all the nuclear nations that will not be within the BMD "bubble" are developing long range missiles and have been doing so for quite some time. WRT your paper, it's complete and utter fallacy. First point, the reduction in ICBMs world wide is already known and not being contested by myself........it's obvious with the "end of the cold war". Second point, it state no nation has : This is admittly false, the United States developed the MGM-134A Midgetman through the early 90s and the Russians recently admitted to a new weapons program........to say nothing about the other countires programs that I provided proof to. I thought you implyed before that ICBMs are no longer a relavent tool for deterrence? If so, why build them? And it doesn't mean they won't......... The same reason any nation threatens Americans and/or American intrests at home or abroad..... illogical thinking.

Yeah, because Diplomacy and containment has worked soooo well in stoping the spread of nuclear weapons..... I've no problem admitting that I don't know all the inner workings of BMD and because of that, I don't state my opinion or that of somebody elses as fact. With that said, one componet of BMD is a sea based, onboard USN AEGIS crusiers and Destroyers....... Prove it! I've already posted a list (with proof) of nuclear nations developing ICBMs today.......if anything, the number has increased, at the very least, the number of nations developing long range missiles has stayed the same. You are putting word into my mouth and changing the subject........Again: "If the threat was minimal, why are hostile and potentaily hostile nations developing ICBMs?" NMD If the system doesn't or won't ever work, how can it be part of the Bush doctrine of preemption? Who do you think North Korea will have their ICBMs targeted at? I don't disagree with you that any country that nuked a US city would be turned into a glass parking lot.........but retaliation is not prevention.

Which papers? Hansen touts 'golden' B.C. blueprint

Another intresing development: Iran, Syria Partnership Raises Eyebrows

Define far..........Iran has the capablity to hit most of Western Europe, possably the United Kingdom and North Korea has already tested missiles that can reach Hawaii and Alaska, and likely the Western Seaboard. Now even if Canada was not to be targeted by a North Korean ICBM, in all likelyhood, the lower mainland and Vancouver Island would be directly affected. I base this assumption on the fact that in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle area) the United States has three naval bases (one bases half their SLBM fleet), and Army base and I believe an Airforce base. Now put aside the economic diaster the entire first world's economies would face from a limtied nuclear exchange, and think of the direct threat a potentail nuclear strike would have on Southwestern British Coulmbians.......... Do you have evidence to suggest BMD can't engage SLBM.....whats the difference if the missile is launched from the ocean or the land? Also, how have you become privy to the reaction time of the BMD system? Which evidence? If the threat was minimal, why are hostile and potentaily hostile nations developing ICBMs? What leads you to believe otherwise? Also, BMD was hatched under Clinton.......if Gore was in the oval office would you give two shits? Of course they can't, but they can make an effort, which in the case of BMD, they are doing rather poorly, due to the fact that they are turning the defence of Canada into a game of political hot potato........It's absoultly disgusting. Also, may I ask, what factors do you base your "ranking system" on?

Does anybody know of the clause that aloud FDR to stay for three terms? Thats the one.......I thought he was born in the Africa. I guess i got him confused with omebody else.

Would you consider it a necessity to add a fourth brigade to the Army (thats not including Paul's promise of an extra 5k troops to flush out the ranks), or IOW go back to our late 80s cold war levels in which we had four Brigades? Thats what I believe both the Senate commity on defence and the CPC proposed (amongest other things).

I thought i read about some bi-partsian lobby group trying to get that changed...apparenlty, the Dems have somebody in the same boat as Arnie? Boranko Bomber or Bommer Fair enough........I think I would bump Mubarak for Kim.......then again, I admit i don't know much about him. With Reports of Syrian involvment in Iraq, I wouldn't be suprised if the United States, via the CIA and/or Mossad tried a decaption like strike. With that said, your point is still very vaild. Is their any Syrian royal family in exile??? Any moderate Syrain "disadents" living abroad? Is their a lust for freedom among the Syrian youth, like how their is in Iran?