will this study open the border to our beef

[idealisttotheend]

Let's say Canada did support the Iraq war.......What do you think the reaction would have been within the white house? Positive or negative?

We could send the white house 'tribute' like they did in ancient times too (how about a billion dollars) and they would see us in a more favourable light. It doesn't follow that we ought to do that because then they might let in more Canadian beef.

Furthermore, we've had problems with lumber and grains with them for a long time before the Iraq war. These were not solved satisfatorially even before we introduces the 'irritant' of not supporting them in Iraq.

What do you think mean more to the Bush administration, the War on terror/Iraq (and bringing more countries onboard with it) or some ranchers lobby groups?

I don't mean to be flipant, but clearly the rancher lobby group is more important. After all the rancher's vote in elections for said government and more importantly influence their neighbours around them on how to vote. They also contribute to campaigns. Canada was one of very many counrties who didn't support the war and not being a "major" power I doubt too many people in Washington even notice or remember.

Plus you have to consider that the real power here is with the senators/representatives and some of them have a lot riding on keeping ranchers happy in their district.

Any form of trade "protest" that we might try on the United States, well it might sting them, will most likely do more damage to us. Like the saying goes, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.........

This is a good point but there must be a balance. I mean if we bend over every time the Americans want something that's not in our interests they will come to expect it.

[Stoker]

We could send the white house 'tribute' like they did in ancient times too (how about a billion dollars) and they would see us in a more favourable light. It doesn't follow that we ought to do that because then they might let in more Canadian beef.

.........Or we could have supported them on Iraq. They didn't want our troops or money, just our "moral support" and the ablitiy to add us to the "coalition of the willing" roster..........Hell, after the United Kingdom, we could have fought for "third place" with Australia......no doubt we would have been ahead of Poland and the Marshall Islands

Furthermore, we've had problems with lumber and grains with them for a long time before the Iraq war. These were not solved satisfatorially even before we introduces the 'irritant' of not supporting them in Iraq.

Sure did. I'd say that our relationship with the States probably started going down hill since the mid 60s. And during that period, when was the only time that you could say that Canada and the States had a good relationship? When Mulroney was being buddy buddy with ole Ronnie Ray Guns.........It's true you do catch more flies with honey then with piss and vinager.

I don't mean to be flipant, but clearly the rancher lobby group is more important. After all the rancher's vote in elections for said government and more importantly influence their neighbours around them on how to vote. They also contribute to campaigns. Canada was one of very many counrties who didn't support the war and not being a "major" power I doubt too many people in Washington even notice or remember.

I too don't want to be flippant, but come November, if Bush loses the election, which do you think will play a larger role with his possable defeat, Iraq or Cattle?

This is a good point but there must be a balance. I mean if we bend over every time the Americans want something that's not in our interests they will come to expect it.

They do already..........We as Canadians can either tell them to shove it and see how far that gets us or, we can swallow some of our false pride and come to understand that half a loaf is better than none and that when one is in Rome, it is advised that one does as the Romans do (or want).

[idealisttotheend]

.........Or we could have supported them on Iraq. They didn't want our troops or money, just our "moral support" and the abilitiy to add us to the "coalition of the willing" roster.

I see your point. But..... At the end of the day I guess you have to ask yourself what our moral support is worth? I mean Iraq is not widely seen as moral by anyone (as evidenced by your own roster of the "willing.") Maybe sometimes you have to stand for what is right when life and death, world security and the international order are at stake.

I don't for one second think you should ever do or not do anything for fear of terrorism. But consider this. If we had no legitimate national interest in Iraq, we went in, flattened some guys house and killed his family as "collateral damage" and he came back and blew up half of Toronto.... would you still think that it was worth it?

Also: I had been wondering over the past year and half exactly why Australia is suddenly so gung ho to support the US in the middle east etc. when one wouldn't think that it had much of an interest in any of it. Turn out that Australia is currently negotiating a free trade deal with the US. Coincidence? Not in this life time.

I guess that proves your point to an extent but I still don't think it is the ideal to which we ought to strive. Nor do I think we ought to encourage the US in it's belief that it can use economic blackmail to get support for it's military policy. If it's military policy can't get support on it's own merits maybe it ought to rethink it?

I'd say that our relationship with the States probably started going down hill since the mid 60s. And during that period, when was the only time that you could say that Canada and the States had a good relationship? When Mulroney was being buddy buddy with ole Ronnie Ray Guns.........

Tredeau got along with Carter and Chretien with Clinton (very well actually in their case).

I too don't want to be flippant, but come November, if Bush loses the election, which do you think will play a larger role with his possable defeat, Iraq or Cattle?

Iraq will be a bigger ticket issue, (Bush ought to lose over the 450 billion deficiet or September 11 and his handling of, not just Iraq). But that's not really the question that concerns us. Bush will not lose the election because of Canada's lack of support. The masses will not rise up and join in popular uprising against US military policy to be more like Canada and follow our shining example. (Ok now I am being flipant, sorry).

If you asked people to list their 1000 biggest issues cattle would likely be 700 something and I doubt Canada's lack of support would make the list. If it did it would be lower than cattle, especially in ranching districts where Mad cow is actually a issue.

They do already..........We as Canadians can either tell them to shove it and see how far that gets us or, we can swallow some of our false pride and come to understand that half a loaf is better than none and that when one is in Rome, it is advised that one does as the Romans do (or want). 

Or we can do neither and pursue our own foriegn policy while being respectful of the American's right to pursue theirs and possibly make the world a better place. We are not in Rome, just beside it and trading with it. And we would do well to treat the relationship as a customer/client one and not master/slave. If the US didn't need our goods they wouldn't buy them.

"i think a friend does not mean you kneel in front of him" Gilles Duceepe

Wise words.

[Stoker]

I see your point. But..... At the end of the day I guess you have to ask yourself what our moral support is worth? I mean Iraq is not widely seen as moral by anyone (as evidenced by your own roster of the "willing.") Maybe sometimes you have to stand for what is right when life and death, world security and the international order are at stake.

As I've said many of times on this board, I support all the reasons for the United States going to war.......and even though I doubt I could name more then a third of the nations in the coalition of the willing without looking them up, I have the utmost respect for the nations that are taking part and probably even more respect for those nations leaders who are fighting an up hill battle so to speak.

I highly doubt Blair will survive his next election, Bush's chances look to be 50/50 (or just under), Spain's leader lost his election and so on. The point is, these leaders are atleast willing to go down swinging and doing what they deem as best for their countries and make hard choices instead of "leading" by the polls.

I don't for one second think you should ever do or not do anything for fear of terrorism. But consider this. If we had no legitimate national interest in Iraq, we went in, flattened some guys house and killed his family as "collateral damage" and he came back and blew up half of Toronto.... would you still think that it was worth it?

The points moot, Osama has already mentioned Canada by name as being on his hit list........it's not a mater of if we will get attacked, it's just a mater of when. You could also take into account another attack on the United States, well not directly but by proxy affect Canada.

Knowing this, I'd rather Canada be supporting the US led war with total support, rather then waiting for an attack that is coming without exhausting all means possable to try and stop it........Call me what you will, but I'd rather go down swinging then with my head in the sand.

Also: I had been wondering over the past year and half exactly why Australia is suddenly so gung ho to support the US in the middle east etc. when one wouldn't think that it had much of an interest in any of it. Turn out that Australia is currently negotiating a free trade deal with the US. Coincidence? Not in this life time.

Or could it be that Australian people as a whole are less ignorant to the threat posed against them by Islamic terrorists, due to the fact that they have a not so friendly nation with close to 240 million just North of them........nah, it's got to be over free trade

I guess that proves your point to an extent but I still don't think it is the ideal to which we ought to strive. Nor do I think we ought to encourage the US in it's belief that it can use economic blackmail to get support for it's military policy. If it's military policy can't get support on it's own merits maybe it ought to rethink it?

The fact of the mater is that the United States is very much aware of it's place in the world and knows very well that it can use "economic blackmail" when it needs to.........nothing Canada (or the majority of nations) can do to change that.

Tredeau got along with Carter and Chretien with Clinton (very well actually in their case).

Didn't the softwood dispute start under Jean?

Iraq will be a bigger ticket issue, (Bush ought to lose over the 450 billion deficiet or September 11 and his handling of, not just Iraq). But that's not really the question that concerns us. Bush will not lose the election because of Canada's lack of support. The masses will not rise up and join in popular uprising against US military policy to be more like Canada and follow our shining example. (Ok now I am being flipant, sorry).

I know that Canada's lack of support won't make or break the election...........my point from the start has been that Iraq is the more important of the two issues to the United States, in that by supporting the War, Canada is spending more "political capital" then the United States would be by having opened their boarders faster to Canadian beef. So I see no reason as to why the United States wouldn't have opened up to us sooner.

Or we can do neither and pursue our own foriegn policy while being respectful of the American's right to pursue theirs and possibly make the world a better place. We are not in Rome, just beside it and trading with it. And we would do well to treat the relationship as a customer/client one and not master/slave. If the US didn't need our goods they wouldn't buy them.

Thats a total load of BS.......as I said before, retrenchment is not an option for Canada, we need trade to survive. So now that you have us going our seperate ways from the United States, we are going to have to start paying our own way.........no more piggy backing with the United States.....this means we have to start paying for our own defence, and do you remeber the fear mongering that happend when Harper wanted an increase of about 4 billion dollars?

If we want to be neutral like a Sweden, we have to pay to defend ourselves like Sweden. In terms of GDP, we spend 1.1% on defence, well the peace loving nation of Sweden spends upwards of 2.2%. Are you prepared for Canada to double (if not more) it's defence spending so as to be able to replace lost capabilities from the United States?

If your not prepaired, we need no longer carry on this topic........but if you are, I'm all ears.

And I'm not being crass or flippant, I'd be willing to explore the idea of an "indepedent" Canada, but only if people understand that it's going to cost alot more money for Canada to start being treated as an equal nation that pulls it's own weight.

"i think a friend does not mean you kneel in front of him" Gilles Duceepe

Wise words.

You don't need to kneel if you are an equal.....

[idealisttotheend]

I have avoided debating the ethics, morality, practicality etc. of the Iraq war and don't think it's a good idea for me to start in this thread.

I will wonder though at the logic that says it's heroric to do something that gets the majority of it's proponents thrown out of office. If the source of legitimacy in a democracy is majority vote then wouldn't the fact that all these leaders are getting thrown out be evidence that such a war was not correct? Yes sometimes politicians have to lead and not follow but doesn't the bar have to be pretty high that they are doing the right thing in spite of majority opinion?

Or could it be that Australian people as a whole are less ignorant to the threat posed against them by Islamic terrorists, due to the fact that they have a not so friendly nation with close to 240 million just North of them........nah, it's got to be over free trade

All things are possible but really. If the Australians are that concerned by the threat posed by Indonesia would it not make more sense to direct their resources there than Iraq? If not military than economic aid etc. If there is a great threat ought the Australians not pour resources into their "home defence" and border/costal security? If the link between Osama and Saddam is weak (in fact they hate each other) the link between Saddam and Islamic fundamentalists in Indonesia is weaker (if for no other reason than those fighting for Islamic fundamentalism would also dislike Saddam who is a secularist).

The fact of the mater is that the United States is very much aware of it's place in the world and knows very well that it can use "economic blackmail" when it needs to.........nothing Canada (or the majority of nations) can do to change that.

It's not working very well in parts of South America (in fact isn't Brazil fingerprinting Americans entering their country, now there's a country with a soul and some guts). In fact, the Americans are up against the fact that if they want the rest of the world to follow their brand of capitalism then America itself can't use economic blackmail against them. The rule of law cuts both ways.

retrenchment is not an option for Canada, we need trade to survive.

Surely. Just we need trade (and have always needed trade) from more diverse partners including the US. And we need to depend more on ourselves more not just our trading partners, especially in manufacturing and technology sectors.

If your not prepaired, we need no longer carry on this topic........but if you are, I'm all ears.

I am prepared to increase defence spending, double I don't know. But we certainly need our own airlift and a bigger navy to assert our soverignty at home. Surveillance of our own coasts is a legitimate need I think we are seriously lacking. I would also like to see us get back into the buisness of serious peace keeping/making and significant resources/eqipment/personel put into this as our contribution to world peace (which, may I point out, is different but not uncomlimentary to how the US sees it's role).

But when it comes to pulling our own weight, I don't see that adopting US style military spending or doctrines has much to do with pulling our own "weight." After all the strategic situation is clearly in our favour as we have no neighbours besides the US to defend against and the only country with the resources to invade is China who don't seem very interested in the prospect.

Terrorism is really a police/intelligence matter and not a military matter and we have a bigger problem with Sihk's fighting over chairs in temples than the elusive Al-Quada.

You don't need to kneel if you are an equal.....

We will never be the military equal of the US. It costs a billion dollars just to operate a supercarrier for a year and our entire military budget is something on the order of 10.5-11 billion dollars. We don't have the resources to spend that money even if we wanted too.

So now that you have us going our seperate ways from the United States, we are going to have to start paying our own way

This sounds like Argus's argument in Canadian Nationalism that all nationalism is biogeted anti-American zealotry.

I'm not advocating burning down the white house again or cutting relations or anything of the sort. When the United States makes intelligent foriegn policy choices that are in our interests we should get behind/beside them with all due speed,(Kerry is making noises about going multi-lateral again). But when there interests are not compatible with ours than we should not join in just to try and stop them from pursuing illegal trade practices against us. When they do pursue such practises we should stand up for our logger and rancher neighbour's rights and livelhoods to the full extent possible and not just kneel down and blame ourselves for not joining the latest US foriegn policy adventure.

Pay our own way. Sure we pay our UN dues, and foriegn aid and help out here or there where required. ICBMs and 500 million dollar airframes do not a responsible country make. We keep our treaty obligations and don't try to create international bodies of justice that apply to the rest of the world but not us. Sometimes paying your own way means more than writing big checks to Lockheed-Martin and GE.

[caesar]

QUOTE

The fact of the mater is that the United States is very much aware of it's place in the world and knows very well that it can use "economic blackmail" when it needs to.........nothing Canada (or the majority of nations) can do to change that.

=========================================

There is something we can and MUST do; don't give in to blackmail.

It may mean some hard times for a while; but if we do give in; it never stops; it just gets worse.

That is what I admired about Trudeau the most. He did not give in to the FLQ threats despite the fact that his own family would have been their favorite target. Think of what Canada would have been like today if he had not stood up to them.

George Bush will not be president forever. The USA does need and want our raw resources. They will negotiate fairly if we stand firm.

Irregardless; Canada must seek more diverse trading partners for trade. Not to replace the USA but to stabilize our economy (trade issues) throughout bad times.

Bush came into power with a chip on his shoulder due to Chretien Jr. (Canada's ambassador to the USA) foolishly stating that Canada would prefer Gore. Bush has been throwing his childish temper tantrum since then.

[Stoker]

I will wonder though at the logic that says it's heroric to do something that gets the majority of it's proponents thrown out of office. If the source of legitimacy in a democracy is majority vote then wouldn't the fact that all these leaders are getting thrown out be evidence that such a war was not correct? Yes sometimes politicians have to lead and not follow but doesn't the bar have to be pretty high that they are doing the right thing in spite of majority opinion?

I'm sure the majority of people would like to not have to pay taxes or better yet, not work at all but still maintain their same standard of living, better yet, not work and have an improved standard of living........So should the government oblige?

All things are possible but really. If the Australians are that concerned by the threat posed by Indonesia would it not make more sense to direct their resources there than Iraq? If not military than economic aid etc. If there is a great threat ought the Australians not pour resources into their "home defence" and border/costal security? If the link between Osama and Saddam is weak (in fact they hate each other) the link between Saddam and Islamic fundamentalists in Indonesia is weaker (if for no other reason than those fighting for Islamic fundamentalism would also dislike Saddam who is a secularist).

The war on terror is not just a war on Osama and his band of merry men, but all terrorism. As for the direction of their resources, though it is apperently unfathomable to some {see Canadian government} a nation should and can, with the right amount of funding, defend it's homefront and still defend it intrests overseas, hence Austrailas involment in the war on Iraq.

It's not working very well in parts of South America (in fact isn't Brazil fingerprinting Americans entering their country, now there's a country with a soul and some guts). In fact, the Americans are up against the fact that if they want the rest of the world to follow their brand of capitalism then America itself can't use economic blackmail against them. The rule of law cuts both ways.

Over a quarter of Brazil's trade is done with the United States, with the reverse not being the same. (The Brazilian mark on the United States is barley felt) So I highly doubt that Brazil is "pushing" the United States that hard.

WRT the fingerprinting, I'm sure some within the US State Department are pleased with Brazils increased effort towards security.

Surely. Just we need trade (and have always needed trade) from more diverse partners including the US. And we need to depend more on ourselves more not just our trading partners, especially in manufacturing and technology sectors.

To whome are we going to diversify our trade with?

As for purchasing more "made in Canada products", are you going to be the first inline to purchase a pair of Nike runners made in Ontario by a union worker for a larger price tag that reflects the "new" cost in paying wages to the North American workers?

I am prepared to increase defence spending, double I don't know. But we certainly need our own airlift and a bigger navy to assert our soverignty at home. Surveillance of our own coasts is a legitimate need I think we are seriously lacking. I would also like to see us get back into the buisness of serious peace keeping/making and significant resources/eqipment/personel put into this as our contribution to world peace (which, may I point out, is different but not uncomlimentary to how the US sees it's role).

To afford all of that (and more), we will have to double our spending as a minium......remeber the ratio of defence spending Sweden has, then factor in the size of Sweden compared to that of Canada and that after the United States, most of our trading is done across an Ocean (unlike Swedens).

Other then that I agree with you that we need an increased role in protecting our soverignty (with as little "help" from other nations as possable). I also agree that Canada should be a player on the world stage, and that ideally we could look after most of our intrests abroad on our own if need be.

But when it comes to pulling our own weight, I don't see that adopting US style military spending or doctrines has much to do with pulling our own "weight." After all the strategic situation is clearly in our favour as we have no neighbours besides the US to defend against and the only country with the resources to invade is China who don't seem very interested in the prospect.

I too agree that the chances of another nation invading us are slim to none, with that said, the chances of Canada proper being attacked by terrorists is high. Also the threat of another country invading one of our intrests abroad is also very likely.

Terrorism is really a police/intelligence matter and not a military matter and we have a bigger problem with Sihk's fighting over chairs in temples than the elusive Al-Quada.

So why do we have over 1500 soldiers in A-stain as opposed to 1500 members of the RCMP?

We will never be the military equal of the US. It costs a billion dollars just to operate a supercarrier for a year and our entire military budget is something on the order of 10.5-11 billion dollars. We don't have the resources to spend that money even if we wanted too.

I can't think of anybody that is calling for Canada to spend an equal amount of money on defence as that of the United States. What we do want though is that for Canada to spend close to the same percentage of our GDP on defence.

If the United States is roughly ten times are size (in terms of economy) and they spend about 398 billion a year (CDN) on defence, we should be spending 39 billion. Now I'm not even suggesting that we need to spend that amount (though I wouldn't turn it down), I'm saying that we should be spending at the same ratio as that of Sweden and the NATO average (2.2%), which would translate into about 26 billion a year.

Pay our own way. Sure we pay our UN dues, and foriegn aid and help out here or there where required. ICBMs and 500 million dollar airframes do not a responsible country make. We keep our treaty obligations and don't try to create international bodies of justice that apply to the rest of the world but not us. Sometimes paying your own way means more than writing big checks to Lockheed-Martin and GE.

If after I finish posting this reply, we have out here on the West coast a massive 8.2 Earthquake, to whom do you think will be flying out the majority of the rescue crews? Who flew the majority of our army to Quebec for the ice storms, or Manitoba for the floods? Who brought and is supporting our Canadian Forces to Afghanistain? Who, at no finacial cost to us, and at a great cost to themselves, are building a complex network of missiles to defend North America, which we are a very large part of? And if God forbid, we we're attacked by terrorists, who would be right there to help us out?

Thats not pulling your own weight.

[caesar]

Quote: "Who, at no finacial cost to us, and at a great cost to themselves, are building a complex network of missiles to defend North America, which we are a very large part of? And if God forbid, we we're attacked by terrorists, who would be right there to help us out?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who goes around meddling where they shouldn't and supporting countries they shouldn't with a veto.*

Who attracts these terrorist attacks to North America with their bullying, and economic blackmail???

By blindly supporting Israel even when that country is in the wrong.

* The UN votes should be non political and not protect a country when it obviously has crossed the lines

The USA vetoed resolutions against Saddam for using poison gas and Israel for anything and everything.

[caesar]

Quote: "As for purchasing more "made in Canada products", are you going to be the first inline to purchase a pair of Nike runners made in Ontario by a union worker for a larger price tag that reflects the "new" cost in paying wages to the North American workers?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, that is an over rated American Company. I will buy made in Canada goods. I am tired of having to constantly return poorly made items from brand name companies.

I recently tried to purchase a vacuum cleaner; partially assembled (seems we have to make everything ourselves these days) : The base of the handle (pre assembled) was put on backwards; to fix it I would have to take it apart and perhaps void my warranty. I returned it to the store; all the stock in the shop had the same problem. That is what you face when you have underpaid child labour.

[Stoker]

Who goes around meddling where they shouldn't and supporting countries they shouldn't with a veto.*

Who attracts these terrorist attacks to North America with their bullying, and economic blackmail???

By blindly supporting Israel even when that country is in the wrong.

Debating over what America has done, and be it for the right or wrong reasons, is pointless because nobody is going to stop them in the near future.

Now what is worth debating is what we as a nation should do.

1. We can carry on how we are and shut-up about it.

2. We could cut as many strings as possable with the United States and see where that gets us and be prepaired to take on the added responsibilities that we have aloud the States to shoulder for us for some time.

3. Take an "actions speak louder then words approach", in that we try to improve our relations with the States via taking on our own responsibilities, thus lessing their load and put into practice the old adage that respect is something that is earned, not demanded and accept the fact that if we want the United States to respect us and treat us as somewhat of an equal/client, we have as a nation have got to start respecting ourselves and act like an equal.

[caesar]

Stoker; quote: "Debating over what America has done, and be it for the right or wrong reasons, is pointless because nobody is going to stop them in the near future.---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Stoker; I have more faith in the American people and do believe that this will be stopped by those citizens on election day.

The USA is NOT invinceable; the world has learnt with Hitler; that you cannot back down and allow them to reign unchecked.

What responsibilities is the USA shouldering for us????

Terrorist attacks????? That is what they have endangered us with.

Canada pays the UN dues to assist with such protection and we pay them on time.

We owe the USA NOTHING but mutual respect and fair trade. As we are not getting that from the USA we owe them nothing.

We do respect ourselves and are not willing to bend over and say kick me; I don't deal with unsavoury people in my personal life; and do not wish my country to take that approach. I prefer our keeping our self respect. Your method would be butt kissing.

[idealisttotheend]

I'm sure the majority of people would like to not have to pay taxes or better yet, not work at all but still maintain their same standard of living, better yet, not work and have an improved standard of living..

You must have more faith in the masses. It took awhile but most people understand that taxes pay for services and you can't have services without taxes. Notice that it is now in vogue to argue against tax cuts in favour of health care.

You said:

Or could it be that Australian people as a whole are less ignorant to the threat posed against them by Islamic terrorists

Then you said:

a nation should and can, with the right amount of funding, defend it's homefront and still defend it intrests overseas, hence Austrailas involment in the war on Iraq.

effectively seperating Australia's home defence from it's involvement in Iraq. So if the two are seperate then what is their interest in Iraq (hint: FTA with the US).

As for purchasing more "made in Canada products", are you going to be the first inline to purchase a pair of Nike runners made in Ontario by a union worker for a larger price tag that reflects the "new" cost in paying wages to the North American workers?

You're right, I am going to have to make that decision. So I am going to have to decide whether or not I want to work for the union wages in Ontario or the wages in China when I make my purchasing decision. People forget the heavily causal relationship between what you purchase and what kind of job is going to be available. But we'll all remember in a couple more years I guarentee you.

So why do we have over 1500 soldiers in A-stain as opposed to 1500 members of the RCMP?

Afghanistan is a failed state and we are trying (well intentionedly but ultimately vainly) to restore a state there. This does help to combat terrorism (if it worked) but at the end of the day if you are sending a conventional military after all the terrorists of the world you are in for a long long "war." The Russians know this quite well from their involvement in Afghanistan.

Now I'm not even suggesting that we need to spend that amount (though I wouldn't turn it down), I'm saying that we should be spending at the same ratio as that of Sweden and the NATO average (2.2%), which would translate into about 26 billion a year.

Agreed. But I would continue to argue for a more peace making role for Canada along with better assertion of our soverignty.

And if God forbid, we we're attacked by terrorists, who would be right there to help us out?

We sent plenty of resources to help the Americans after 9/11. This had nothing to do with pulling their own weight but with helping others who need it. I agree completely though that this counrty is in serious need of a whole bunch of airlift capacity. No use arguing about what you got if you can't get it to where it needs to go.

3. Take an "actions speak louder then words approach", in that we try to improve our relations with the States via taking on our own responsibilities,

We may determine our "responsibilites" have nothing to do with what the Americans think they should be. This is doubly true if you really think that it's alright to control resources belonging to other countries (which the US has been doing since WW2 but may be something it would want to stop doing rather than do more of).

[Stoker]

Well Stoker; I have more faith in the American people and do believe that this will be stopped by those citizens on election day.

Bush's rating just went up three points.........

No 'bounce' for Kerry so far

The USA is NOT invinceable; the world has learnt with Hitler; that you cannot back down and allow them to reign unchecked.

Let me be clear, are you comparing the United States to Nazi germany, and by proxy Bush to Hitler?

What responsibilities is the USA shouldering for us????

National defence.

Terrorist attacks????? That is what they have endangered us with.

So yiu are saying that it's the lone fault of the United States that Canada is a possable terrorist target?

Canada pays the UN dues to assist with such protection and we pay them on time.

We owe the USA NOTHING but mutual respect and fair trade. As we are not getting that from the USA we owe them nothing.

Would you respect a person that you had to take care, not because they we're lacking an ability to care for themselves, but because they just couldn't be bothered?

We do respect ourselves and are not willing to bend over and say kick me; I don't deal with unsavoury people in my personal life; and do not wish my country to take that approach. I prefer our keeping our self respect. Your method would be butt kissing.

We don't resepct ourselves as a nation........for christ sake, we let another nation protect us, and instead of showing gratitude we return with spite and then wonder why they don't respect us........

You must have more faith in the masses. It took awhile but most people understand that taxes pay for services and you can't have services without taxes. Notice that it is now in vogue to argue against tax cuts in favour of health care.

And it will take awhile for the masses to see the full impact of a democratic nation in the "heartland" of the middle east............until that time, I rather be lead by a clear vision of the future, then by emotion.

effectively seperating Australia's home defence from it's involvement in Iraq. So if the two are seperate then what is their interest in Iraq (hint: FTA with the US).

Please contect the dots........you see I don't have my tin-foil hat on

So the reciprocal of your above statement, could be that the United States asked Australia to help in Iraq so a Free Trade Agreement could be worked out?

I still tend to believe, and you can call me crazy, that perhaps Australia shares the same values as the United States........

Afghanistan is a failed state and we are trying (well intentionedly but ultimately vainly) to restore a state there. This does help to combat terrorism (if it worked) but at the end of the day if you are sending a conventional military after all the terrorists of the world you are in for a long long "war." The Russians know this quite well from their involvement in Afghanistan.

How are our efforts in Afghanistan all for not?

We may determine our "responsibilites" have nothing to do with what the Americans think they should be. This is doubly true if you really think that it's alright to control resources belonging to other countries (which the US has been doing since WW2 but may be something it would want to stop doing rather than do more of).

Well thats what we have been doing for the couple of decades..........If we want to get serious, we need only look at other sovergien G8 nations and see what they deem as ones own "responsibilites" and follow suit.

[caesar]

What Canada needs protection from the most is the USA

[Stoker]

And what is the United States doing that we need to protect ourselves from?

[caesar]

LISTEN TO THE NEWS;

[Stoker]

LISTEN TO THE NEWS;

I listen, watch and read it............I don't know what you're on about, so again:

And what is the United States doing that we need to protect ourselves from?

[caesar]

Oh Stoker; denial for you is bliss. What has it not done.

Angering Muslims and Arabs with it unjust invasion of a Muslim country (Iraq). The USA using its veto to allow Israel to escape responsibility for its unjust actions against Palestinian citizens. The USA using its veto that allowed Saddam to escape responsibility for using poison gas against Iran. All these actions have helped recruit more terrorists which endanger North America.

Then there is ????? free trade???? that allows them to take any of our resources that they wish and refuse hoenest trade.

I am not saying that only Israel has done wrong; only that the USA misuses its veto to protect Israel (thereby enabling) when it does do wrong.