Boondoggle

The Hidden wars documentary that I talked about explains some of the misleading things the US did with the Desert Storm war. For example, it talks about how the US grossly exaggerated the number of Iraqi forces that invaded Kuwait to get the Saudis to Support US military forces in their country. General Norman Schwarzkopf states in an interview that a very large portion of the Iraqi military never entered Kuwait. He also talks about how the US needed a military HQ in the Middle East, but no Arab country would allow it. The documentary mentions satellite photos being used in news reports, which show a large US build up in Saudi Arabia, but not the huge Iraqi force in Kuwait as the US government stated. I decided to do an online search, and found one of the articles, which you can read here: St. Petersburg Times Photos don't show buildup

I got that quote from a documentary, which is why I didn't provide a link. However, I looked for an online source and found this: http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?na...e=print&sid=251 The second paragraph under Categorizing the Axis has it, and explains how Scott Taylor (a Canadian war reporter) uses it in the opening of his book. The exact quote goes like this: "oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs." - Henry Kissinger While searching, I also found this: U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields In '73 - British Memo Cites Notion of Sending Airborne to Mideast Scott Taylor was held hostage in Iraq, and offers a very interesting inside view of the resistance in Iraq: Veteran War Correspondent Held Hostage in Iraq Describes His "Five Days in Hell" Canadian Journalist Recalls Captivity in Iraq It's amazing what you can find with a little curiosity and a search engine. When the shoe fits... There's plenty of blame to go around. For example: both the US and Iraq are to blame for the problems with the UN inspections, but you don't have to take my word for it; listen to what the inspectors say. I recommend checking out what Scott Ritter has to say about that, and I already provided links. In the case of sanctions, read what Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck have to say about it. Again, I already provided links. The tension between Kuwait and Iraq already existed. I'd say that the US took advantage of it. I've provided links to support what I've said, and in the case of a documentary, I explained how to get it. It is a fact, not a suggestion, that the US was the main driving force behind the sanctions, and keeping them long after it was necessary. Here's what Fmr. Asst. UN Secretary General Hans Von Sponeck has to say about it in an article that I gave a link to in the previous post: "The UN doesn't impose sanctions. It's the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions. The UN, we are the UN: we are implementing what we are allowed to implement, so I don't see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 [oil-for-food] program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that's the outcome, but I don't see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime" 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. As for the second war, did the original case for war hold up? No. The fact is that the US is by far the biggest consumer of oil, and has to import over half of what it uses. It is also a fact that over half the worlds known oil reserves are in the Middle East. Industrialized nations run on oil, and the oil price is directly connected to the economy. Therefore, by controling the flow of oil, you can create economic security for youself and allies, and possibly create economic insecurity for opponents. As for the military bases, I thought it was common knowledge, but you can read about it here: US 'to keep bases in Iraq' Are you talking about the second Gulf War, Desert Storm, or US foreign policy for the Middle East in general? With regards to your comment about Halliburton comment, you'll notice that I provide details and sources to support what I say while you provide little beyond sarcastic comments. So are you going to contribute anything to this debate, or just talk out your ass? At least I provide sources to support what I say. You make a typical mistake of bringing partisan politics into this. I criticize the sanctions and operation Desert Fox under the Clinton administration, and criticize the Bush administration with regards to the war. I've also criticized Canada's support of the sanctions under the Liberal party. No, I criticized the support of the sanctions and rightfully so. August1991 is having problems refuting what I say though so he has to resort to smart ass comments.

Keep trying to spin it. I backed up what I said with proof. Two of the top UN officials didn't resign because of what Saddam was doing. They resigned because of the sanctions. If you take the time to read what they say, you might learn something. I posted a number of links about the sanctions, and I bet you didn't even click on one before shooting your mouth off. Of course while you keeping trying to dismiss all of this, you offer nothing to support your opinion, and you also totally dodged the question. Therefore, your opinion is irrelevant. Again you're just trying to spin it. The fact is that US figures are off by almost $9 billion in less than two years, and that's at a time when Iraq can't even produce much oil. Further, it probably wouldn't have even been brought to attention if not for the oil-for-food investigation. Did I point the finger at Bush? The example I gave talks about the Bush administration, but I think the goal is broader than that. It's about bringing American influence into Iraq like it or not. It's about setting up military bases there much like what they did in Saudi Arabia with the first war. All of this makes it easier for America to control the flow of oil -- not just for one man to get rich. This is something that's been going on for decades. Henry Kissinger once said, "oil is too important to be left to the arabs." Here's another example from that article: "For example, Halliburton, under its contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers, provided fuel to the military at $1.59 per gallon, while the Iraqi national oil company could buy the fuel at 98 cents per gallon. The difference came to $300 million, and the profits were funneled into the coffers of an American corporation, rather than pumped into the Iraqi economy. In October 2003, a leading British aid agency, Christian Aid, released a study showing that of the $5 billion in Iraqi oil money transferred to the Coalition Provisional Authority, the CPA could only account for $1 billion. The accounts were still incomplete upon the CPA's dissolution, according to Christian Aid." It's a question of ideology and theology, and it's better to try to understand the people of the region than to try to reshape it in our image. Remember, the Shah of Iran was pro-US and was overthrown, which also lead to Americans being held as hostages by people that were angry at the US and the Shah. The majority of Iraqis are not likely to accept a pro-US government at the expense of the ideology and theology that they share with Iran. Of course, this also overlooks the fact that the Kurds want their own state, which would cause serious problems with Turkey. You also have to factor in the Sunnis that usually hold power. I said it puts it in context. Western propaganda likes to call Saddam the Hitler of the Middle East. However, while Saddam's ways of crushing dissent and ensuring his position in power were brutal, the record also shows that Iraq had pretty good living standards before war and sanctions. Saddam was about staying in power not genocide. He has a bad human rights record, but so do a lot of US allies. The "chaff" supports everything I've said and helps put the last couple decades into context. It's your prerogative to ignore it if you wish, but if you plan on speaking out of ignorance and trying to spin facts, don't expect your opinion to hold much water. Nice try, but I posted almost two dozen links that include mainstream news sources not conspiracy theory sites. It wouldn't hurt you to do a little research too, and maybe even read the links provided instead of trying to dismiss them wholesale. I don't call passing judgement on something you have not seen intelligent. I gave you that link so that you could read about it, but I also told you where you can get it for free. It may come as a shock to you, but there are other sources of information beyond websites (ie documentaries, books, etc). Considering that Hidden Wars has interviews with key people that were involved, such as General Norman Schwarzkopf, it's not something that you can easily dismiss. However, it's clear that you will dismiss anything that challenges your view. That's unfortunate because as they say, a closed mind is an empty mind.

The link mentions Glaspie. Here's a link to the New York Times article covering the meeting with Saddam from which quotes were used: THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL: Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy Here are a few other links: BBC: About Saddam Hussein Washington Post: U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup (Iran-Iraq war) Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities Sanctioned genocide: Was 'the price' of disarming Iraq worth it? Iraqi Sanctions: Myth and Fact Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq Denis Halliday opposes U.N.’s sanctions Fmr. Asst. UN Secretary General Hans Von Sponeck on Iraq and Palestine Clinton administration blocks easing of sanctions against Iraq UN 'kept in dark' about US spying in Iraq Myths About Iraq Exploited by War Hawks (by Scott Ritter) Ex-monitor says UN tricked Saddam to prompt bombing Washington Post: The Difference Was in the Details (how the US used UN inspections to target Saddam in operation Desert Fox) Scott Ritter: Understanding the Roots of Terrorism: Iraq as a Case Study Scott Ritter on C-SPAN The Use Of Force By The United States Against Iraq: Legal Issues (a brief that was sent to all UN Security Council members) Lawyers Statement on UN Resolution 1441 on Iraq RESOLUTION 1441 AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL (another article by Lawyers) Good enough for now? Also, I recommend Hidden Wars of Desert Storm, which you can download from edonkey. It has an interview with General Norman Schwarzkopf about how Bush asked him to end the war, and shows him signing the paper work with the Iraqis. It also has interviews with people like Scott Ritter, and Denis Halliday. Further, it talks about how the US wanted the war. It also talks about how Kuwait was cutting oil prices by producing more oil, which hurt Iraq's economy while it was recovering from the Iran-Iraq war. You may also want to check out a documentary called In Shifting Sands by Scott Ritter, which covers the UN inspections in the 90s. You can find it on edonkey as well, or bit torrent if you know where to look. I'd post a direct link to the torrent, but it's probably against forum rules.

I provided a link to the governments position. More to the point, the Oil for Food flap fits into the decade-old pattern whereby Washington and London place exclusive blame for the humanitarian crisis in Iraq before the invasion -- and now for the country's hobbled economy as well -- upon the "neglect" of the former regime. While Oil for Food funds may have improperly ended up in the hands of Saddam Hussein's government, the fundamental responsibility for the humanitarian crisis was the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq by the Security Council, and then enforced in an extraordinarily harsh way at the insistence of the US and Britain. Under the sanctions, Iraq's annual gross domestic product dropped from about $60 billion to about $13 billion, according to a joint Food and Agriculture Organization and World Food Program estimate released in 1997. Assume that all the accusations of corruption are true, and the government of Saddam Hussein did indeed salt away $11 billion over the six years in which Oil for Food was in effect. Even if those funds had purchased humanitarian goods, the Iraqi GDP would have risen to $15 billion annually -- not an amount that could have compensated for the loss of 75 percent of the economy or rebuilt the dilapidated infrastructure. History may record US and British evasion of their share of responsibility for the havoc wrought by sanctions in Iraq as the real Oil for Food scandal. Scandals of Oil for Food So let's say your economy was chopped down to 25%, would you consider the living conditions good even if the government spent every peny on the people? To compound that problem, important supplies that were needed for things such as clean water were difficult to get regardless of whether or not Saddam was willing to spend the money because they were considered "dual use" items. As a result, and there are reports on this, the death rate increased dramatically under the sanctions. That is basically a war crime because civilians should not be targeted. For this reason, Denis Halliday (Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq) resigned. In less than two years, his successor, Hans Von Sponeck, resigned for the same reason. BTW, the article that the above link leads to explains the details about the oil-for-food program that right-wingers like to leave out. Perhaps you feel I'm bashing the US because I'm criticizing US foreign policy. If it makes you feel better, I can point out how other countries are responsible too. For example, the Canadian defence web site states: "The Canadian Forces have been participating in the enforcement of UN sanctions against Iraq for the past 10 years. Our contribution is important in promoting our international interests and is viewed as crucial by our allies," said Minister Eggleton. "This operation is extremely beneficial in ensuring our interoperability with our allies and particularly the United States. It will further strengthen our Navy's relationship with the U.S. Navy and reaffirm our commitment to peace and stability in this region." I disagree. I think if people in the US, Britain, Canada and in other countries that were responsible, knew more about it, they'd be shocked and ashamed. http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view...ews_e.asp?id=35 The point is, I'm sure the Iraqis could use that money. It's not pocket change that we're talking about, and it is theirs. The point is, by definition, democracy is rule by MAJORITY, and if that's what the majority wants.... After the war, there was an uprising, which Washington encouraged. Given that Saddam was a control freak, it should come as no surprise that he'd do that in order to remain in power. It helps if you put things in context so perhaps you should read about it.

USSR/Russia: 120 vetoes. Only two vetoes since the collapse of the Soviet Union US: 77 vetoes. Blocked 36 resolutions criticising Israel. UK: 32 vetoes, 23 times with the US. All solo UK vetoes on Zimbabwe France: 18 vetoes, 13 with the US and UK China: 5 vetoes http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm If you remove vetoes that were used in support of the US, the record would be: 2 for Russia (since the Soviet Union) 9 for the UK 5 for France 5 for China 77 for the US with 36 blocking resolutions related to Israel The US isn't in much of a position to talk about other countries blocking resolutions. Right-wingers always like to play the oil-for-food card when the UN is mentioned. Since it was mentioned, let's take a closer look: Scandals of Oil for Food Humanitarian Emergency The raft of investigations has been accompanied by a loud campaign, led by William Safire and other conservative columnists, to discredit the Oil for Food program in public opinion. Claudia Rosett, one of the most vitriolic critics, wrote in the April 28 Wall Street Journal, "It's looking more and more as if one of the best reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein was that it was probably the only way to get rid of Oil for Food." How seriously should these sensational accusations be taken? When the program was formally terminated in November 2003, $31 billion of humanitarian aid had been delivered, primarily food and medicine, but also items for water and sewage treatment, electricity production, transportation and agriculture. Within the narrow strictures of the sanctions regime, the Oil for Food program accomplished a great deal, according to statistics kept by these agencies and independent observers. Between 1997 and 2002, the nutritional value of the food basket distributed monthly by the program almost doubled, from 1,200 calories per person per day to about 2,200. The incidence of communicable diseases, including cholera and malaria, was cut down substantially. Electricity became more reliable, as did the availability of potable water. Despite these gains, sanctions continued to take a toll. In the late 1990s and the early days of the current Bush administration, most of the debate over Oil for Food focused on its limitations as a remedy for Iraq's humanitarian crisis. Today's spotlight on alleged corruption in the program, in addition to being tinged with reflexive right-wing hostility to the UN, reveals the collective amnesia about the effects of the economic sanctions that made Oil for Food necessary in the first place. Smuggling Yet it is somewhat misleading to portray smuggling as a failure on the part of the UN. In 1990, Security Council Resolution 665 invited member states to interdict the suspected smuggling with their own military forces, leading to the establishment of the Multinational Interception Force patrolling the Persian Gulf. The US Navy provides most of the ships for the force, which has operated under the command of a series of American rear admirals and vice admirals from the Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain. None of the members of the Security Council ever intervened to block the well-known smuggling route passing through parts of northern Iraq controlled by US-allied Kurdish militias into Turkey. The US also filed no objection to the oil trade between Iraq and Jordan that took place throughout the history of the sanctions. Kickbacks On more than 70 occasions when there were obvious price discrepancies, the Office of the Iraq Program did bring them to the attention of the so-called 661 Committee -- composed of all 15 Security Council members -- which reviewed all proposed Oil for Food contracts. In testimony submitted to Congress on April 28, John Ruggie, the assistant secretary-general charged with relations with the US mission, recalled that the committee "approved roughly 36,000 contracts over the life span of the program. Every member had the right to hold up contracts if they detected irregularities, and the US and Britain were by far the most vigilant among them. Yet, as best as I can determine, of those 36,000 contracts not one -- not a single solitary one -- was ever held up by any member on the grounds of pricing." Mass Distraction While Oil for Food funds may have improperly ended up in the hands of Saddam Hussein's government, the fundamental responsibility for the humanitarian crisis was the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq by the Security Council, and then enforced in an extraordinarily harsh way at the insistence of the US and Britain. Under the sanctions, Iraq's annual gross domestic product dropped from about $60 billion to about $13 billion, according to a joint Food and Agriculture Organization and World Food Program estimate released in 1997. Assume that all the accusations of corruption are true, and the government of Saddam Hussein did indeed salt away $11 billion over the six years in which Oil for Food was in effect. Even if those funds had purchased humanitarian goods, the Iraqi GDP would have risen to $15 billion annually -- not an amount that could have compensated for the loss of 75 percent of the economy or rebuilt the dilapidated infrastructure. Full article here. Expansion of Probe into Iraq's Oil-for-Food Program Includes CPA A House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday broadened its investigation of Iraq's oil-for-food program to include the Bush administration's handling of the country's oil money. The decision to subpoena documents from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York marks a major shift in the Government Reform subcommittee's investigation, which until this point had focused on corruption in the United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq during Saddam's regime. The decision means the subcommittee also will scrutinize the activities of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004. A recent internal audit of the CPA by its inspector general concluded that the authority couldn't account for $8.8 billion in oil revenues that belonged to the Iraqi people. Full article here. US Report of Iraq Payoffs Miffs France The US' handling this week of a report on Saddam Hussein's attempts to purchase weapons and buy influence has angered French officials and set back a year of US efforts to repair the rupture caused by the Iraq war, French and other European officials said on Friday. The anger of France and others is focused on the assertions in the report by Charles Duelfer, the top US arms inspector in Iraq, that French companies and individuals, some with close ties to the government, enriched themselves through Iraq's huge payments to gain influence around the world in the years before the war. Administration spokesmen said that there was no intent in releasing the report to endorse its findings or blame France or any other country for corruption, or to link any alleged corruption to that country's subsequent opposition to the war in Iraq. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney and others in the administration are citing the Duelfer report as evidence that Saddam had sought to corrupt foreign countries in order to have sanctions on Iraq lifted. Although Cheney did not say so directly, French officials say it was obvious that he was referring to France and other countries that had opposed the war. French officials say that the report's charges, based on documents and interviews in Iraq, have been denied in the past, but that Duelfer's report did not contain the denials. They also complain that France was not given more than one day's notice before the report was issued. They were incensed that the report also mentioned Americans in connection with similar charges, but that unlike the French they were not identified because of US privacy regulations. "You protect American citizens, but you put in danger a number of private citizens in other countries who may be innocent people," said Jean-David Levitte, the French ambassador to the US. "These names are from an old list, published months ago, and those mentioned denied it flatly." Full article here. Annan seeks independent oil-for-food probe "I think we will need to have an independent investigation, an investigation that can be as broad as possible to look into all these allegations which are being made and get to the bottom of this," Annan said earlier Friday, prior to sending the letter. Questions swirled around the role of Kojo Annan, the secretary-general's son, in the Swiss company Cotecna, which was hired to inspect food and supplies going to Iraq under the program. A senior U.N. official discounted the insinuations Thursday, saying the younger Annan resigned from Cotecna before the company won the bid to aid the oil-for-food program. Full article here.

First, Iraq didn't start with Saddam, and you may be surprised to know that Saddam actually spent billions of the oil money on Iraqi's throughout the 70s and 80s. Iraq actually had pretty good living standards before war and sanctions. Second, if the oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and I agree, please explain this: "A House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday broadened its investigation of Iraq's oil-for-food program to include the Bush administration's handling of the country's oil money. The decision to subpoena documents from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York marks a major shift in the Government Reform subcommittee's investigation, which until this point had focused on corruption in the United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq during Saddam's regime." "The decision means the subcommittee also will scrutinize the activities of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004. A recent internal audit of the CPA by its inspector general concluded that the authority couldn't account for $8.8 billion in oil revenues that belonged to the Iraqi people." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanct...004/1005cpa.htm As for a new government, that's going to be a problem. The Sunnis usually hold power (Saddam is Sunni) but they are a minority, and so if democracy is the goal, they'll have to give up some control, which they won't like. The Kurds have been fighting for their own state for a long time (a Kurdish state would cause serious problems with Turkey), and given the past, won't want to allow Sunni control of the north. The Shia at 60% of Iraq's population make up the majority, but share the same theology and ideology as Iran. The US government has stated that it won't allow Iraq to be like Iran. As we all know, democracy is rule by majority, and thus they basically stated that they will not allow Iraq to be a democracy. Therefore, you have three groups with conflicting interests, and a country that can't rule by majority. Something tells me that it'll either be a puppet government that Iraqis will resist, or it'll be more than a couple months. Resolution 678 authorized Desert Storm, and resolution 687 ended it. Resolution 687 was passed on April 3, 1991. You can read UN Security Council resolutions here: http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm If you are refering to the UN weapon inspectors, they went in after Desert Storm as a condition of resolution 687 to disarm. However, the US used the inspections to spy on Saddam, and then used the information for targets in operation Desert Fox. The UN inspectors were ordered out so that they could begin operation Desert Fox -- not kicked out by Saddam -- and they weren't allowed to return. As a result, four years past without inspections. Just before the second war, inspectors were allowed to return, but weren't given enough time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,208440,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,309143,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl...aq/analysis.htm

Canada isn't sitting on the fence. Here's an example of the government's position: Occupied Territories Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over the territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip) and opposes all unilateral actions intended to predetermine the outcome of negotiations, including the establishment of settlements in the territories and unilateral moves to annex East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Canada considers such actions to be contrary to international law and unproductive for the peace process. Seems pretty clear to me. You can read the rest here: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/middle_east/c...asp#top_of_page It's not a matter of Israel having terrorist links, but they are involved in state terrorism. There are many reasons to criticise the Israeli government, but here are two recent examples: 1) Israel is building its wall in occupied territory and fragmenting communities. When this issue was brought to the Security Council, the US alone blocked it. It then went to the World Court, but that doesn't matter because Israel refuses to recognize it. 2) Mordechai Vanunu blew the whistle on Israel's secret nuclear weapons program, but the only thing that happened was that he was kidnapped, dragged back to Israel, and locked up for 18 years. He was released earlier this year, but was arrested again. It seems the nuclear hypocrites weren't happy with destroying 18 years of his life for doing the right thing. Meanwhile, Iraq has been devastated with war and sanctions and never developed a nuclear weapon. Granted there were resolutions, but israel would be in violation of far more resolutions if not for the US. Ironically, Bush said in a speech at the UN that it should either enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant.

Scott Ritter totally ripped apart the case for war in Iraq before it started too. The mainstream media pundits said he was out of the loop, but it's funny how he got so much right, and the government got so much wrong. http://www.sass.caltech.edu/events/ritter.shtml Then there's Denis Halliday (former head of the U.N.'s humanitarian program in Iraq) who resigned over the sanctions calling them genocidal. In less than two years his successor, Hans von Sponeck, resigned for the same reason. A good documentary about the first war and the mess that followed is Hidden Wars of Desert Storm, which can be found on edonkey. The second war is just a new chapter in a long story. Both Ritter and Halliday spoke at the House of Commons before the war: http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/37/1/FAIT...Tnt87(9564).htm

Unless you're suggesting that we're going to have foreign companies build them in Canada, you're wrong. The Government is committed to building these ships in Canada in accordance with the current shipbuilding policy. That's from the Department of National Defence web site.

Canada has had seven years of surplus, which it uses to pay down debt. Currently Canadian debt stands at about $500 billion. In contrast, US debt is over $7 trillion (about a third of that is financed by foreign countries), and recent US deficits are almost as much as Canada's debt. In 1997, Canadian debt-to-GDP ratio was 71%, which has dropped to about 42% today. Over the next ten years, the government plans to lower it to 25%. This reduces the amount of money wasted on interest payments on debt, and makes Canada less vulnerable to interest rate shocks as a result of things that happen beyond Canadian borders. Comparing Canada to the US by converting to USD is flawed because of fluctuation in currency value. In just two years, the Canadian dollar has gone from 62 cents US to 83 cents US, and obviously a 21 cent increase in such a short time will have an impact on the figures. Further, such a sharp drop in the value of the USD shows that all is not well. The main reason why it's a waste of time comparing the US to other countries isn't because the US is so much better, but because the USD is the main reserve currency around the world, which gives the US a huge advantage. However, Russia and OPEC have been considering the Euro, and as the USD weakens, it makes more sense. US dollar hegemony has got to go

Food for thought: The Myth of the Liberal Media Independent Media In A Time Of War

For seven years Canada has had multi-billion dollar surplus, and from what I've read, it'd cost about $3-5 billion for better subs. They could spread it out so that they use about a billion or so per year from the surplus to cover the cost of the subs. As for APCs, they're already working on it: Mobile Gun System Yes, under the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), which Canada is a signatory to. However, as said, the idea is to consider nuclear powered subs. The US is by far the most powerful country, and although it spends about as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, it did not deter attacks. If people want to attack, there are a lot of ways of doing it that military force alone cannot stop. The first real step in solving the problem is understanding what causes such hostility, and a good part of the reason is western hypocrisy, which they're not likely to admit to. This is why Bush says things like "they hate us for our freedom." Not yet: The Joint Support Ship will provide three distinct capabilities: Underway Support to Naval Task Groups – Underway support is the term used to describe the transfer of liquids and solids between ships at sea. This underway support also includes the operation of helicopters and a second line maintenance capability for helicopters, as well as a task group medical and dental facility; Sealift – To meet a range of possibilities in an uncertain future security environment, three Joint Support Ships together will be capable of transporting 7,500 lane metres of vehicles and stores. This will provide for the transport of an army battle group. The capability will also include a flexible self load and unload function; and Afloat Support to Forces Deployed Ashore – This capability will provide a limited joint force headquarters at sea for command and control of forces deployed ashore. The Government is committed to building these ships in Canada in accordance with the current shipbuilding policy. Joint Support Ships Other plans for the Canadian Armed Forces include: - Pay increase, and income tax exemption on money earned while serving in peacekeeping/combat missions. - An additional 5000 troops added to regular forces and 3000 to reserves. - New helicopters, and upgrades for the F-18s.

Climate Change: Myths and Realities