Boondoggle

Look at two similar occurances at nearly the same time: The Newfoundlanders lost their cod, and they are still sitting around collecting welfare (even though they have plenty of off-shore oil and an agreement with the Feds that they get all royalties collected). Alberta lost its oil with the NEP, and now we are the richest region in North America. Alberta still has its oil. There's the difference. Do any of you remember the "Please God, send us another oil boom. We promise not to piss it away this time" bumper stickers? And Newfoundland has oil. Why are they poor and we are not? They don't have nearly as much. The key to developing the economy in the Maratimes is to attract more business. Young people often move out of the area to find job opportunities. It's a very rural area so that can be challenging. I think it would be better in the long term to try to develop more of a skill based economy than resource, but perhaps money from oil production can kick start that.

Like a business, sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Education, for example, is a worthwhile investment. It means people can get better jobs, which means a higher standard of living for them, and it means more tax revenue because of higher paying jobs, which can be considered a return on investment. Having some debt isn't that bad if kept in check, and economic growth can also keep it under control. For example, budget cuts helped elminate the record high deficit in 1993, but the Canadian economy has grown 50% since then. That means a drop in debt to GDP ratio even if debt stays the same. In 1993, debt to GDP was over 60%. Today, it's about 38%. So, even if we increased debt, we wouldn't be where we were in 1993. Ontario may have debt, but it also has a more robust and diverse economy than Alberta. It also has good economic growth. Paying down debt in Alberta is, however, smart because it shields it from possible vulnerability in the energy sector. For those that want to make this a partisan issue - including some that do that but deny doing it - the US has far more debt, and more often than not, the Republicans are in power. The US also has an equivalent of just about any social program you can find in Canada despite its tendency to have right-wing governments.

Just remember that a true conservative puts money away for rainy days. Considering that Alberta has had a bust and boom economy in the past, rebate cheques might not be the best way to use the money. Why would a "hard working" conservative want money that he/she didn't earn anyways? Wouldn't you rather a tax cut?

You make it sound like a good thing to pay someone sh*t wages. I guess as long as it's not you making the sh*t wages.... One could argue that there is another big story: Conservatives were locked out of Canada's major cities. Toronto has a bigger population than Alberta, almost as many ridings and not one is Conservative despite the fact that it's Stephen Harper's home town. Last I checked, the financial heart of the country was on Bay street. The unemployment rate in Ontario is about a whopping rate of 5% - same as the US. Toronto is known as the silicon valley of the north because of all the high tech jobs. As far as construction goes, it's one of the fastest growing areas in North America, and you don't have that kind of growth in construction if you don't have a strong economy. The City Place condo project going up by the CN Tower alone is worth $1.5 billion. Donald Trump is building one of his towers in Toronto, and from what I've read, the cost to live there can reach up to $18 million. Now, if the economy is so bad compared to Alberta, who'd be able to afford that? If there's no market for it, why build it? Yet Toronto is a Liberal stronghold.... Perhaps, the opposition to the Conservatives is so strong in the area because Mike Harris left Ontario with a $5.6 billion deficit despite budget cuts, which the Liberals will eliminate by 2008-2009. The Liberal government at the federal level, however, must also share the blame for fiscal problems in Ontario. By cutting transfers to help eliminate the federal deficit, they basically shifted federal debt over to provincial debt. I live in the Toronto area and I agree with the Conservative platform on many important issues. I've even voted Conservative, but there are two sides to a coin, and you can spare me your regional supremacy crap because I can just as easily point out the strengths of Ontario, but its the sum of parts not one province that makes Canada a great country.

Most Canadians are ignorant to the fact tht 80% of our economy is based on US consumer spending... but oh well. Actually, it's 80% of trade not the economy. A lot of other things go into the economy. Take construction for example. Most people that buy homes in Canada are Canadians, and those homes are built by Canadians using Canadian materials.

If you read my post again, you'll see that I start off by saying that people that are partisan tend to only use facts that either favor their position or reflect poorly on what they oppose. In other words, they offer an incomplete, and therefore inaccurate, picture. The purpose of my post was not to refute, but to add some of what you left out. I'm not cherry picking or being partisan either. Naturally, I covered area that either made the Liberals look bad or the Conservatives look good to balance what you already covered. That's not being partisan. If I were partisan, I wouldn't have acknowledged that the Liberals have done good things, nor would I say Trudeau was one of the better Prime Ministers. The only thing that I really mentioned that the other parties are promising is democratic reform, and given the length of my post and how much I dedicated to that, I don't think it's accurate to say I was stressing that point. However, it's worth mentioning that there is bipartisan support for democratic reform. What will the Liberals do for democratic reform? Remove the notwithstanding clause and have the courts dictate? No thanks. If international obligations to NATO and the UN are important to you, then you should keep in mind that under international law it is for the Security Council to decide on matters of security not NATO. Kosovo was a NATO mission not a UN mission, and airstrikes are hardly classified as peace-keeping. The only two wars that the UN supported were Korea and Desert Storm. As for nuclear weapons, Canada signed on to the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) in 1968, yet had nuclear weapons in the country long after that. Of course, this could open a debate about effectiveness of the UN, but that's not the point when you mention our obligations. If you prefer the Liberals, that's totally your prerogative, but it's simply untrue to suggest that one party has it all right and the other has it all wrong.

The only facts that matter to someone that is partisan -- and your post is very partisan -- are facts that can be used to support his/her own view and/or reflect poorly on what he/she opposes. However, there are also the facts that these people like to ignore. The Liberals have accomplished quite a bit, but they have also been in power most of the time. I'm not going to try to deny that the Liberals have done some good things because I'm not interested in partisan arguments. However, while they've done well in some areas, they've neglected others. For example: they've done well with the budget in recent years, but I just don't think they get it when it comes to defense, democratic reform and law enforcement. Rather than having tunnel vision on what's already going well, maybe it's time to focus on things that aren't going so well, and I'm not convinced you're going to see that with the same party remaining in power for so long. I consider Trudeau to be one of the better Prime Ministers. However, it's interesting how the Liberals recently tried to imply in an attack ad that the Conservatives would use the military to impose martial law when the only Prime Minister to do that was Trudeau. Canada has had 8 years of surplus because the tax payers gave them money while services were cut. They tell you they have plans for the future, but if you elect the same government, you're likely to get the same result. That would include paying down debt, which is good, but I don't think that's the only issue to consider. The question is: are you happy with the status quo? If so, vote Liberal. I'd say that the friendship between Canada and the US exists more as a result of social and economic interaction than from political rhetoric. It's well known that some of the comments from the Liberals in recent years haven't exactly been helpful. By definition of the word "ally" Canada should support the US when appropriate. The US doesn't always have it wrong; therefore, supporting the US in conflicts is not an absurd thing to consider. Furthermore, it's estimated that 500,000 to 1,500,000 people died in Iraq under the sanctions that Canada helped enforce while the Liberals were in power. If you take the lowest figure, it's still higher than the number of deaths in the Iraq war. The conclusion in the Duelfer report echoed what people in UNSCOM were saying years ago, which was that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed in the 90s, yet sanctions continued, and thus the suffering continued. The US/British policy was that 100% verified disarmament was necessary to end sanctions, which was impossible to achieve. I think Harper spoke prematurely on this subject for partisan reasons, but has long since changed his position. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that elected representatives listen to constituents, and Harper as demonstrated that he can do that. If he gets elected and it's just lip service, it'll be twice as hard for Conservatives to get re-elected. For the Conservatives, the critical thing will be to build trust not pushing contentious issues. Also, don't forget that it was the Liberals that sent CF-18s on bombing missions in Kosovo in addition to the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan, and indirectly, Canada contributed more to the Iraq war that alot of the coalition. Canada also contributed indirectly to the Vietnam war. Canadian made Napalm and Agent Orange ended up in Vietnam, and Agent Orange was tested in Canada even though the government denied it for years. It was the NDP, by the way, that helped uncover that. They also tested Agent Purple, which is far worse than Agent Orange. I agree that it was a mistake to scrap the arrow, but there's more to the story when it comes to the Bomarcs. Despite pressure from the US, Diefenbaker refused to arm the Bomarcs with nuclear warheads. At the time, Pearson's wife joined a group called Voice of Women that opposed nuclear weapons in Canada, and Pearson himself was against the idea. However, he later changed his position, and Trudeau lashed out at him for doing so. The following election was fought on the issue of nuclear weapons in Canada, and Pearson won. In 1963, Pearson met with JFK and agreed to nuclear weapons in Canada, which arrived at the end of that year. It seems alot of Canadians aren't even aware that there were nuclear weapons in Canada, but it was a reality thanks to the Liberals. Native people also got the right to vote when Diefenbaker was Prime Minister. Typical partisan argument. The Liberals blame Mulroney for it, and the Conservatives blame Trudeau. As for the GST, I thought the Liberals were gonna cut it? What happened to that? And the Liberals expanded on it with NAFTA. How do you expect to grow your economy with an isolationist attitude? Canada is next door to the largest economy in the world, which accepts the majority of Canadian exports, and Canada usually has a trade surplus with the US. That comment shows contempt for democracy. It is NEVER good for democracy to have a lack of opposition to the governing party regardless of which party your views are aligned with. Without opposition, what you have essentially is a coronation not an election. One of the key issues, I believe, in this election is democratic reform, and both the NDP and Conservatives agree on fixed election dates and possibly proportional representation. Perhaps, but the only way for them to grow is if more people support them. Who knows, they my get people in the House of Commons this time. Also, unlike other media sources, CPAC has been covering them. True, but cherry picking it for partisan reasons is pretty bad too.

Where are those figures on the Liberal Warehouse daycare plan? Ontario's cost for the 25,000 daycare spots is presently costing Ontario taxpayers -$44,000 per spot. How much will 650,000 spots cost with the Liberals plan? Another gun registry? No,something even more expensive. So your solution is "scru the kids. I want a few bucks in some kind of rebate. Any kind." No, the solution is to give parents a choice.

So Harper is first accused of a hidden plan to cut social programs, and now he's got a hidden plan to spend more on health care? Which is it? You know Harper is an economist too, right?

We are already in deep debt, blame that one on the Liberal Messiah Trudeau. And Bush's deficiet is due to military spending in Iraq. Harper has said no Canadians will go to Iraq. The Conservative platform works, you'll find plenty of economists that endorse it. Canada's debt is about 38% of GDP. In contrast, the US has about 8 trillion in debt with a GDP of about 11 trillion. In other words, US debt is about 73% of GDP, but they are also somewhat shielded from the effects of high debt by having the worlds main reserve currency. Canada's debt is less than $500 billion. In contrast once again, the deficit in the US for one year, about 300-400 billion, would cover most of Canada's debt. So, I'm not sure I would say Canada is deeply in debt. It could be better and it could be worse. It certianly was worse in the 90s when debt to GDP was at about 68%.

Central planning vs. free markets is a classic debate, and those interested should read about Keynes & Hayek. I think some government regulation is ok when it's in the interest of the public (ie health care), but name one country that's benefiting economically from government control of markets. I disagree with you when it comes to the Liberals on this issue. The Liberals have spent billions on tax cuts, paid down debt, and signed on to NAFTA. This creates the conditions to expand private enterprise not government. The Liberals are more for big government when it comes to social programs. The national child care program they want to create is an example. However, they are fiscally conservative, and thus they're more of a centrist party. This is an interesting topic, but it doesn't necessarily get into the details of the election or follow party lines. The fact is that the most important thing in politics is winning, and you do that by recognizing what there is demand for and using it to your advantage before your opponents use it against you. For example: with the increase of gun violence, there is demand for getting tough on crime, and Layton is talking about that even though it's typically more of a right-wing position. In contrast, Harper is talking about affordable housing, which is something you'd expect from Layton. Meanwhile, the Liberals have been one step behind because they're hoping the scare tactics used in the last election will work again. Personally, I don't think the "hidden agenda" argument used by the Liberals holds water. After 12 years, the opposition is hungry for a chance to gain power. If they win and proceed to do things that upset alot of the constituents, it'll be twice as hard for them to get elected again, and I'm sure they're aware of that. Instead, I think what we'll see is that they will maintain the status quo on things like social program spending, and instead work on issues where there's more of a consensus but little action from the Liberals. If they want to stay in power after being elected, they'll have to prove themselves, and I think this is why they've taken care to have a pragmatic platform.

Because that's what the military is for: a status symbol to show other countries how bad-ass we are. Couldn't Canada just buy a flash sportscar and get a young trophy girlfriend instead? If that's the case, Canada should be going for the F-22. The F-35 is actually a pragmatic approach by design: You can view the countries that are involved here: http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htm and an image with an F-35 that has a Canadian flag on it here: http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/mediakits/pos...airshow2005.pdf As usual, when it comes to the military, the Liberals only spend enough to say they're doing something, but Canada is still involved. I know there are pacifists in this country that'd be happy to have the neglect of the armed forces continue, and perhaps they'd be even happier if Canada didn't even have armed forces, but history shows that Canada is not a nation of pacifists. There is nothing wrong with having a properly funded military, and there are some things worth fighting for. For example, The General in charge of the UN peace-keeping mission in Rwanda, Romeo Dallaire, is Canadian. He told everyone months in advance about what would happen and said he needed a couple thousand more troops. Canada likes to have peace-keeping as a national symbol and already had a General in charge of the mission so why not send a couple thousand troops? Was it that Canada was unable to do that because of the government cutting the budget and expecting the military to do more with less, or did they just turn their backs like everyone else while 800,000 people were killed? Either way, it doesn't exactly reflect well on us does it? If people are concerned about getting involved in armed conflicts, they should focus on the policy not on the funding for the military.

If we ever had a serious natural disaster in this country we would need the Americans ASAP It's obviously much easier to deploy troops and equipment in your own country than a landlocked country thousands of miles away with poor infrastructure.

Actually, I saw an interview with a pilot once, and he said that whether you're talking about an F-15, F-16 or F-18, they're all lethal, and the difference is in the skill of the pilot. Until the F-35s and F-22s are ready, the newest of the bunch is the F-18 Super Hornet. I doubt Canada will get F-22s because they're so expensive, but Canada did contribute money to the development of the F-35 program, and the order of who gets them first is based on who contributed and how much. Therefore, it seems that the Canadian government wanted to keep the option to replace the F-18s with F-35s open. Why replace the F-18s with an older plane like the F-15 or the updated F-18 Super Hornet when you can use them until the F-35s are ready? Of course, I don't see how the difference between the F-35s, F-22s and F-18s really matters when you're talking about fighting the Taliban.

Let's be honest about this, the media was just trying to get Duceppe to admit to what he was doing. Duceppe has said he wants to increase the number of seats that the Bloc has, but recent polls show his numbers going down while support for the Conservatives in Quebec is going up. The Conservatives are ahead of the Liberals in Quebec; therefore, Harper is more of an opponent now than Martin. Instead of attacking Martin constantly, as he usually does, he is suddenly spending more time attacking Harper. His reasons for doing so are blantantly driven by numbers. He has to attack the federal party that has the most support in order to maintain support for his separatist party. Personally, I think any federal party that bites into support for the Bloc is doing a good thing.

all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land You may want to read it again. The US not just a signatory to the UN Charter, but was one of the main countries that created it. Given that it was the US that agreed to and even created much of what's in the UN Charter, you cannot call it foreign intererence. If you give your word to something, you either honor it, or your word isn't worth crap. Now, if they don't like the way the UN is set up, their is a process for that, called reform, that should have been the approach before the war not after. Interestingly enough, the US still doesn't want to abolish the veto, and thus all their so called reform ideas are worthless because the veto is the heart of the problem. Furthermore, if anything, it is the US that interferes both with its veto in the UN (the record shows that the US uses if far more than any other country since the Soviet Union) and by invading a sovereign state. The UN Charter gave authorization for Desert Storm because a sovereign state was invaded, but when the US does it, it's ok? Who cares what Congress passed? They failed the people they're supposed to represent miserably. The problem with the case of the resolutions that Iraq didn't cooperate with is that it's never put into context - just like nobody ever mentions that Saddam killed a lot of people WITH our help. Iraq was also concerned about security, and while we may think getting rid of the Saddam regime is a good idea, it is not what the resolution called for. The mandate given was to disarm Iraq not to mess around with its security or sovereignty. There's plenty of evidence that the US had the goal of regime change, counter to the UN mandate, all along, and it takes two to tangle. As for Darfur, you are FLAT OUT ass backwards WRONG. The difference between you and I is that I believe force should be used to save lives not 15-20 years later and saying: oh yeah, this is for what you did back then. You can't do anything for the dead, but you can help those at risk, and that's Darfur. The same applies to Rwanda. They should have supported Dallaire when he told them what was going to happen before it happened. However, nobody had any interest in Rwanda, and the US led the way in blocking any effort to do anything about it. If you doubt that, read up on what Dallaire has to say about it. In an article I read, he said "the UN is small time culpable compared to the US, France, and England - all of which have veto power. Begining to see a trend here? BS Most of those weapons that you refer to entered Iraq long before the sanctions, and much of it had to do with the Iran-Iraq war. As for the Oil-for-Food program, you're forgetting the biggest crime of all: why it was needed in the first place. The sanctions had little to no effect on Saddam, but hurt the civilians, and those that put the sanctions in place knew that. The figure for the number of people that died as a result of the sanctions ranges from 500,000-1,500,000. So, take your pick, but those people died slow and miserably, and it was preventable. You can try to say it's all Saddam's fault, but the US and Britain, the main driving force behind sanctions, are culpable in that. Of course, if you're one of those people that think money is worth more than life, the US and Britain still have some explaining to do: It was the 661 committe, which is the Security Council, that was in control; therefore, you cannot mention who is to blame for the mess without also including the US and Britain. People that do that also have a tendency to blame the UN for Rwanda, which is also wrong. Most of the countries you refer to wanted sanctions lifted not continued, and thus the Oil-for-Food program would be irrelevant. Considering that the sanctions were in place because of WMD, and as we can see there was no WMD, there was a valid reason for doing so. On this subject, it is also worth noting that Saddam wanted to switch to Euro. Now, if sanctions were lifted and he did that with no response, and as a result other OPEC countries followed, what impact do you think that would have on the US economy? It's all inclusive, and it is free for companies that want to do business here, which is a major competitive edge. Toyota decided to build its new plant in Ontario over several states that wanted it, and they said one of the key factors in the decision was health care, which is a major expense for companies in the US. Your other point is a lame attempt to negate the fact that the 6% of GDP difference in spending has something to do with it. Because they are the center. Paul Martin is more fiscally conservative than George Bush. With Paul Martin, Canada has had 8 years of balanced budgets and federal surplus. When was the last time the US had that? However, they are also pro-universal health care, which one could argue is leaning to the left. Personally, I just think they're good at knowing what most Canadians want and use that to their advantage. They also used the NDP, which they are hardly in bed with, to their advantage to keep their government alive. By your logic, the Conservatives are in bed with a separatist party. However, in reality, the Conservatives, like the Liberals, were simply using that to their advantage. No, deeply embarassing for you. You're not in a position to speak for others, and how the hell do you know what people around the world think of Canada?

Are you kidding me? Where do you think most of the tax payers are? The same place that most of the population is. There is a $23 billion dollar gap between what Ontario sends to Ottawa in taxes, and what it gets back in services and transfers. 40% of Canada's industry is in Ontario, and it's #1 in North America for automotive manufacturing. It is the financial heart of the country with the main stock market in Toronto, and most major companies have offices in Toronto. I'm not trying to gloat, or argue about which province is better; I'm just pointing out some facts because to say that you pay for Ontario means that you're grossly misinformed. In fact, it's quite the opposite of you paying for Ontario. The $23 billion dollar gap is a result of an equalization program in which the money goes to those most in need, and the federal government argues that Ontario isn't in need. I agree with helping other provinces and I'm totally for a strong and united Canada, but it's really annoying to listen to people in Alberta with their flat rate 10% income tax complain about paying too much. If anything, it wouldn't hurt Alberta to carry a little more weight if the economy is going so well and give people in Ontario a little tax relief.

I think the problems you are talking about have more to do with maturity than nationality, and I know something about Americans in Canada because I've spent plenty of time with them. I've even had an American girlfriend for several years. Not once in my experience have I seen what you describe. If you look for a partisan political argument, then you're asking for it, but the same could be said for Canadians talking to other Canadians or Americans talking to other Americans. It's best to look for common ground until you get to know people. Also, I wouldn't take criticism of government personally because Canadians like to talk the same way about their own government, and I'm sure you can find some examples on these forums.

I totally disagree with you on that. The WMD excuse was a pile of crap. Democracy is something people choose not something you force on them. As for Saddam's crimes, most of it happened 15-20 years ago with the knowledge and even assistance of the US and other developed countries. If saving lives is so important, they should have done something about it then, and they should be doing something about Darfur now. Can't blame it on a different administration either because a lot of the people in Bush's administration came from Reagan's administration. Meanwhile, the Bush administation has gone against the UN Charter, which they are obligated to follow according to Article 6 of the US Constitution, and they've since unleashed a lot of ethnic tension. They now have to face a catch 22: stay in Iraq, and hope it gets better while more people die and the US continues to spend money it doesn't have, or pull out and leave the country to fall into civil war if it's not already there. It was a wise decision on the part of the Canadian government to side-step that. I don't mean to sound anti-American, just that I disagree with the US foreign policy towards Iraq. The Canadian system is more inclusive while the US system is faster. However, the US spends about 15% of GDP on it while Canada spends about 9%. Therefore, it stands to reason that Canada could have a quick system like the US that's also universal by increasing the budget. That may be your opinion, but the Liberals are center, and it's the NDP, which hardly dominates the government, that is left. With the Liberals in a minority government, I don't see how you can conclude that the government is far left. Throughout the 90s, however, the Liberals did have a monopoly on the system, and it appears that the US is in that situation now. I don't think the problem is left/right as much as it is political stagnation. The whole left/right thing tends to be a distraction from the issues.

absolutely From what I've read, there's already an increase of $7 billion over several years for more troops and new equipment, and they're going to gradually increase the budget each year until it's doubled. You can read about it on the Canadian defence web site. However, if more is needed, I'd support it. I'd much rather Canada spend more money on its own military than get involved in the missile defence crap. That's just another Bomarcs plan that the US has tried several times. By spending the money on Canadian defence, it's under full control of Canada. Paul Martin talks about how Canada should have a seat at the table for missile defence, but if the US wants to do something, are they going to change their mind for Canada? The US wants Canada to increase defence spending and join the missile program. I say Martin should make a deal to increase spending, but skip the missile program.

You show your true -- American Wannabe -- colours. Canada is the worlds biggest producer of uranium, has advanced technology, and builds its own nuclear reactors. If it wanted to, it could easily have nuclear weapons that could be built entirely in Canada, but chooses not to. The US wouldn't be able to "crush" a nuclear armed Canada as Coulter suggests. Further, it took decades for the US to produce better fighter jets than the Avro Arrow, and if Canada had of continued its own program, it'd probably be ahead of the US today. Also keep in mind that Canada's debt is about $500 billion vs. the US debt which is about to hit $8 trillion -- about 40% financed by other countries. Money is real power. They wouldn't have all their war toys without money to pay for them, and if other countries decided to dump US investments they'd be screwed. Also, they have a hard time occupying small developing countries. Good luck trying to occupy one of the largest countries in the world. However, Canada is a peaceful country, and acting like a bully is a job for the American right-wingers. Newfie Canadian is absolutely right in saying that they're lucky to have Canada as a neighbor. If they had a neighbor that was hostile with WMD or commiting terrorist attacks against them they'd be wishing they had a neighbor like Canada. Look at all the tension around the world over the Iraq war. Can you imagine how the world would react if they attacked Canada? You think Britain would be part of a coalition to attack a Commonwealth country? Ann Coulter has a permanent case of PMS. She bashed those that speak french and said she likes the english speaking Canadians. I'm an english speaking Canadian that respects the french far more than I respect her. She also bitched about Canada's position on Iraq and Vietnam, but left out WWI, WWII (Canada was involved from the start while it took the US a couple years and an attack to get involved), Korea, the Cold War, the Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and almost every UN peacekeeping mission. While Canada was neutral for Vietnam, it did produce Napalm and Agent Orange for the US, which wasn't one of the finer moments in Canadian history.

Well maybe you should get to know your country a little bit better. Hmm... Maybe exporting more oil to the US than Saudi Arabia in the last couple years might have something to do with clearing the debt? Just a thought. In order to afford everything and have low taxes, you need to have more people paying taxes, and Toronto has a bigger population than Alberta. Alberta's economy depends on oil, which happens to be expensive to produce. Oil from Alberta's oil sands has a cost of about $12 per barrel to produce vs a dollar or less from a country like Saudi Arabia. In other words, the success gained from the oil sands depends on relatively high oil prices. In addition, you use up natural gas and water supplies to produce it. Increased oil exports to the US, and higher oil prices over the last couple of years have resulted in more money. Wow, how brilliant Ralph must be to do that. What you would notice is less economic diversity, that Canada benefits from by being united, and Alberta would be more vulnerable to changes in the oil market. There are only two real ways your vote would mean something: you either vote the same way as the majority in your riding, or switch to proportional representation. With a smaller population and lower taxes, I'd like to know how you'd be able to afford it. Also, unless you want to totally depend on the US for everything, most of the Defence industry in Canada is in the east.

If Kerry was elected, would John Howard have made a stand against change in US policy, or is he just willing to kiss the ass of whoever happens to be the US president? I could give a rats ass what someone like that thinks. Ah yes the mighty F-117 that we should all worship. Forget the cost, low numbers of them, or the F-117s that crashed. Not to mention the F-117 shot down in Kosovo, but hey that's understandable given how powerful Kosovo is right? The F-117 may be an excellent and advanced aircraft, but it's not invulnerable. The bulk of the US airforce is still made up of F-14, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s which are falling behind. In an air exercise with India, SU-30s beat US F-15s. The F-22 is very expensive - even by US standards - and isn't going to be mass produced. Further, production will take until 2013 to finish; therefore, it doesn't totally solve the problem. The bulk of the US airforce will be replaced by the F-35, which won't enter service until 2008. Canada is one of eight countries in a partnership program developing and financing the F-35, and thus will probably buy some to replace the F-18s, which are expected to remain in service until 2010. Of course, all this comes at a cost. The F-22s and F-35s are expected to cost about $280 billion at a time when the US debt is over $7 trillion, and about a third of the debt is financed by other countries. It's kinda hard to trot around as an untouchable superpower when other countries are keeping you afloat economically. Spoken like someone that's truly ignorant of geopolitics. Not to mention that terrorist attacks are acts of individuals not the policy of countries; therefore, what right have you to declare war on a country and kill their civilians over it? Following your logic, the US should have attacked Saudi Arabia where most of the hijackers originated from. When you do declare war on a country, the burden is yours to prove that your reasons are just. Going to war based on allegations is not acceptable, and the US government failed miserably to make its case for the Iraq war. Violence begets violence. It's your mistake if you choose to become that which you despise in an attempt to fight it. Avoiding the Iraq war is one of the best things the Liberals have done in recent years, and resisting US pressure to support an illegal and immoral war is NOT limp wristed. Canada was there in WWI, WWII, the Korean war, the Cold war, Gulf war, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, and numerous peacekeeping missions. So what if Canada didn't jump in for Vietnam and the recent Iraq war. Is Canada supposed to be an extension of the US military to act without any thought of its own? I don't think so. How's your application for US citizenship going Stoker?

If Martin sells out, he can kiss his minority government goodbye. The question is, if that happens, what's next? Unless the NDP wins, you're still left with Liberals or American wannabes er... I mean Conservatives. Given that so many Canadians are against these policies, if Martin screws up, it'll be a good opportunity for the NDP.

I feel the same way about your posts, and that's why I couldn't be bothered to continue. There's no point in talking to a closed minded fool that thinks that being able to support what you say is not important. Let's just use one example to drive the point home: Clearly you didn't read what I posted. In the post you replied to, I said this: It is also a fact that the sanctions crippled Iraq's economy (that's what sanctions do) and impoverished its people. If you chop the GDP down in any country to 25%, regardless of whether leadership is good or bad, you're going to create serious problems for the people. Add to that the difficulty of importing important items that are considered dual use, but needed for things like clean water. Further, if you bother to read what former weapons inspectors, such as Scott Ritter, have to say about WMD, which was the reason for the sanctions, you'd know that they stated that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed by 1996. What that means is that 90-95% of the weapons were destroyed, which is why they found no sotckpiles (as stated in the Duelfer report) and they destroyed the manufacturing facilities. The remaining chemical and biological weapons (Iraq never developed a nuclear weapon) have a shelf life of about 3-5 years under ideal storages conditions, and nothing in Iraq resembles ideal storage conditions. Therefore, what you're left with is intent to start a new program, and perhaps some leftover material and dual use items. In other words, they could have used a monitoring program to address any remaining concerns and lift sanctions for the sake of the people. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you read it, you wouldn't ask that question, or try to twist what I said. However, not only do you not bother reading articles that are linked, you don't read what is posted. Of course, this isn't important, and neither is supporting what you say, or offering links to additional information that others might be interested in.