Neal.F.

If France, England, Czechoslovakia or Poland had the Bush doctrine in the 1930's , Hitler could have been nipped in the bud. In 1934, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland with 10 000 troops (which he then marched out again and back in to create the impression of having more troops than he really did) had the French, and British Expeditionary force immediately called for his withdrawal, and threatened to invade in the event he refused, that would have been the end of Hitler. Had Czechoslovakia, backed by England OR France taken action against Hitler after the Anschluss, after which everyone knew, Czechoslovakia would be next, Hitler would have been stopped. Poland alone could have taken out Hitler in 1936 before the military buildup was complete. Sometimes you have to act against an enemy before he gets you. War must always be a last resort, after a policy of no concessions (rewards for bad behaviour) are exhausted. everybody knew that Hitler wanted to expand, but there was no appetite for war, so the Brits (under first Baldwin, then Chamberlain) and French did not act until it was too late and war was thrust on them, and it was nearly too late. The price of living as a free person is eternal vigilance. The fact is, there will always be countries that will want to harm or invade someone else, and it is up to those countries to defend themselves by being prepared, forming Alliances to dter their enemy or if neccessary, when intelligence determines that you are under threat, by acting unilaterally to defend yourself.

In spite of tensions, India and pakistan have always been able to tone things down and talk about it. However, North Korea is an illegitiamte rogue state, led by a certifiable madman who cannot be reasoned with. I thought North korea deserved priority over Iraq, and still consider them to be the most immediate threat to stability in the world today. Japan or South Korea would be justified in an attack designed to eliminate the North Korean leadership. I could go on for hours with stories I got from former soviet citizens, who were about the only people in the world ever to scratch the surface of this little Stalinist hermit kingdom. just two examples: At KOMSOMOL (Communist youth League) international meetings, people from the various east Bloc countries, Mongolia, African countries etc. would exchange buttons, patches and pins. The Noth Koreans were forbidden to exchange pins bearing the likeness of Kim Il Sung for anything. There were also stories of how one needed to get the permission of block commitees (On which served a political officer) just to go out and buy a frying pan! They could have the money, but could not buy it without permission.

Mod, I am convinced that the evidence they had for war, ie: WMD that could be used directly by Iraq, or passed on to other parties who would harm people in the west was accurate, but I also believe that Saddam had hidden his arsenal, probably in Syria, so he could play the PR game he did, using the Useless Natterers to make him look clean, and to humiliate the Americans when they did come in. They will be found, Oh yes. When and where are the only questions. The fact that they USED such weapons on their own citizens who happened to be of the wrong ethnicity is proof that they had such a program, and that they were prepared to actually use them. What, are we supposed to wait for them to use their weapons against us first before we act? That, in my view is the height of irresponsibility. GWB's actions removed a dictator who was a proven threat to the region, and possibly other countries, and who masscred hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who deigned to disagree with him. I've explained why the deficit is neccessary. Sometimes doctinaire fiscal conservatism must be cast to the wind, such as in a case of war, a war which had really been officially on since 9/11 when thousands of people were attacked and murdered by fanatical terrorists bankrolled and supplied by hostile regimes such as Saddam's. The tax break was for all Americans paying taxes. If you pay more, your break will obviously be larger. GWB has not ignored domestic issues: I'd say homeland defense is pretty important. And tax cuts also serve to kick-start the economy by putting money back into peoples' pockets. BTW, one big problem in the US economy, and which has caused this adjustment to take place is the enormous credit card debt that was piled up by people during the "let the good times roll" Clinton era. Comes a time when cards get maxxed out and it's payback time. I'm convinced that that contributed greatly to the economic trouble. If you want proof , just look at all the advertising for debt consolidation loans. cares what "world opinion" says about the US? Much of that is motivated by envy. They want what Americans have, only one problem: They think they are entitled to it without working for it. Any country worth its salt will take the steps it deems neccessary to protect its citizens, and economy against the acts of terrorists. The Dumbocruds don't have the money to pull off a win: Barbara Streisand and herilk from Hollyweird and the Trial lawyers can only contribute so much.

George Bush MUST be re-elected. Then he can complete the task of ending abortion in the USA, and move ahead on faith based initives replacing state based welfare, and his refom of the education system, putting more power in the hands of parents. The Republicans must finish the job of undoing all the damage done by the Klinton regime. Deficits are sometimes neccesary, especially when the nation needs to place all the resources neccesary at its disposal to fight a war, and give its soldiers the best possible chance of survival. The economy went through a down period as well, caused partially by the cyclical nature of economies in general, but exacerbated by the effects of 9/11, so it was neccessary to go into debt to keep the economy from actually collapsing. It was a matter of National defense in the true sense. The economy is now showing signs of growth, and is expected to grow in the next quarter as well. And with permanent tax cuts, it will flourish. Once we are through the rough patch, the deficit can be eliminated as no longer neccessary. I am a fan of Ronald Reagan, after growing up wacthing the near decline of the US under the Carter adminstration, when the US was on bended knee, and watching it rise again to a level suitable to its status as a superpower, which resuklted in the fall of Communism, making the world a safer place. I think GWB might well be remembered by posterity as possibly as good, if not a better President than Reagan, if he stays the present course toward defeating enemies without, to wit the threat of terrorism and fundamentalist Islam, and the threat from within, ie: the liberal assault on judeo-christian values and civilization. A Howard Dean Administration will be tantamount to revisiting the Carter years.

Craig & Pellaken, I don't appreciate the tone of either of your posts. While I am not a Muslim, i know plenty of Muslims who are well educated, and are people of deep faith, who hate those who have politicized their religion. and Pelly, I believe your shot at Christianity was partially meant to demonstrate your outrage at Craig's post, in case it is actually the way you feel about it (and you said yourself you have rejected Christianity) , let me remind you that Jesus didn't "just come along" His coming was referred to and predicted all the way through the Old Testament from Genesis through to Malachi, and it happened exactly as the prophets foretold. Did a few tricks, did he? Who else since then has raised people , including Himself from the dead? Poof! 2 billion followers? Puhleese! the numbers were very small in the early church, largely because Christians were persecuted by both the Hebrew authorities, and the Roman ones , who (listening Craig? ) thought they needed to get with the modern world. Now, another statement of fact: Christianity was persecuted until Emperor Constatine had his "revelation"and unfortuantely (good intention, bad result) mandated that all in the empire were to become Christians. It is very clear from the scriptures that to follow Christ is a choice that must be freely made, and often at great cost . While we have seen many people fall away from the Church, in reality they were probably bnever really Christian to begin with. Now the Church is experienceing Phenomenal growth at this time: spurred by those who embrace the faith voluntarily! We have really returned to days similar to the early church, where believers are spat on , reviled or outright persecuted to the point of death. As to the decline of Islamic culture, it reaklly was made clear when after the sacking of Alexandria, Sultan Omar gathered upn 750 000 volumes from the Alexandria library and said "if they do not conform to the Koran, they are dangerous. If they do conform to the Koran, they are redundant. Therefore , burn them all" That had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam itself, but with government enforcing ITS version on the people.

You're far to generous to the Dumbocruds, Craig.

Michael "Wiener" Savage is Jewish.

I like the name with which Michael Savage dubbed the Klinton woman: Hitlery Klinton. I have diehard Democratic acquaintances in New York, who can't stand this pontificating midwesterner as their Senator. They go on to say that she is so polarizing a figure that she could never win the presidency. Furthermore, when the US is ready to elect a woman president, it would be a conservative woman. Unless the electoral college system is scrapped, Hitlery Klinton faces the challenge of winning the "red states". While feminists and liberals will put her over the top in liberal states like New york, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, DC, California, Washington & Oregon, the more conservative women voters of the red states would not consider her just because she's an outspoken woman. But yes, it's a very bad time to be a Demoncrat in the US right now. It has truly become the party of the Hollywood avant-gardistes, and the slimy trial lawyers. Unfortunately, in Canada, it's just as bad a time to be a conservative.

Between the two of you I don't have too much to add to what you've said! Except, perhaps that you have my 100% agreement and support. The US should withdraw from this organization pronto. The fundamental flaw that doomed the UN from day one, was the lunatic idea of inviting dictators to the table, expecting that they were open to dialogue and discussion, and would make a positive contribution on the world stage. Dictatorships exist for one purpose only: Power. Power for its own sake. If this were not the case then they would not need police state apparatus to maintain their regimes. The best course of action might be for the US, and a few proven democratic allies (ie: UK< Australia, Spain Portugal, Poland, Italy, Japan etc) get together and form an organization that will ACT decisively against rogue nations. There can be no place for France or dictatorships in this group. And as a prerequisite for Canada's joining, a new government must be elected that will restore us to "real country" status that the Liberals ( a government of whoich Paul MArtin has been an integral part) have so effectively destroyed.

I concur with Greg as to the quality of the discussions that take place here. Though we differ in our opinions I must say the posters here treat each other with respect,and don't resort to ad-hominem attacks, smear and partisanship for its own sake. The points are thoughtful and I haven't seen any real malice here. This is civilized debate...something missing from the political scene in Canada since the dawn of the twenty second soundbite. Ok everyone..... big group hug!

A few years ago, then Opposition leader Lucien Bouchard made the Statement "Canada is not a real country" . The words hold true, though not in the context he meant them. During the Mulroney era, Canada still had an armed forces to be proud of. It was on the mend after 16 years of Trudeau rule. Trudeau castrated this country both militarily and socially. He destroyed the social fabric by enacting heinous legislation which decriminalized abortion and sodomy. By his radical socialization of this country, he created a culture of dependency out of one that used to be enterprising and pioneering. Now we have an unproductive little nanny-state where the best and brightest flee south at the first opportunity. The nanny state can exist only because of the trade that exists between canada and the US> the few enterprising people left are for the most part pro-american (thoughh not neccessarily in lock-step with the current administration's foreign policy) but they are fewer in number than the pathetic little whiners who vote Liberal thinking they are so much better than Americans. It is so like Trudeau who shat on Nixon, and hobnobbed with Jimmy carter. Who thought having Castro as a friend was better than Ronald Reagan...who ran about with his dictator friends in Socialist International like Tanzania's Julius Nyerere, and sold nuclear reactors to such nice people as Nicolae Ceaucescu. The Liberal party is the political legacy of Trudeau, so it breeds anti-Americanism. Te reason these jokers are still in power, and still popular is because they have divided the traditional conservative coalition that has been able in the past to form alternative governments, and by virtue of the possibility they might win an election next time, has hitherto kept the Liberals in check. What about the possibility of change in the near future? Lets see. Stephen Harper has failed to capture the imaginations of people outside the Reform party strongholds. And even there, he is faring worse than his two predecessors. Things do not look good for the CA at the moment. Now the PC party is having a leadership contest which could change things: if they can find a leader that can re-unite the traditional fiscal conservative(but socially indifferent)/social conservative coalition that was able to win in the past, and who can strike up a rapport with canadians in all regions, then there will be a chance of ousting the Liberals, or reducing them to a minority. At worst , you'd have an opposition that could keep Liberal excesses under control. Depending on who wins the PC leadership, a merger between the PC and CA (or ebven the collapse of the CA) could happen quickly. I'm told that Jim Prentice has the respect of many in the CA, and if he wins, we might see Mr Harper, who i wonder if he even wants the job, step aside and encourage co-operation. Peter MacKay is also said to be open to a merger under the right conditions. He is also more socially conservative than most of his opponents, (such as opposing the decrim. of pot, anti-gay marriage etc), and so could bring back the social conservatives into the fold. the election of the new NDP leader could have the very disireable effect of suctioning off left Liberals who are uncomfortable with the Martin coup-d'etat and his (sham) fiscal conservatism, thus re-creating the conditions which existed 15-20 years ago, where Ontario seats come into play again, which have not been since the day the NDP elected Audrey McLaughlin as leader. Paul Martin would not have the cakewalk everyone expects. Quebec is the one wild card. Liberals could make up for lost Ontario and maritime seats in Quebec, should the Bloc collapse, as it well might. on the other hand the increassed profile that will result for Andre Bachand's participation and possible kingmaker status could get the tories a handful of seats in the province, especially if the Bilingual Layton makes inroads in Quebec for the NDP. It's about time the anti-american liberals were riened in. They'll always be there, but if we can get our act toegther, the impression they've succeeded in creating that we as a country, are anti-American can be changed.