RM> On the basic idea of us being in that war I agree that we either
RM> should not be there or should not be there in the capacity that
RM> we are. Harper wants us to turn into 'little America' and do
RM> most of what Bush wants us to do.

PC>  From what I got as an impression, I thought we were there due
  >to a threat to NATO.   If a member country is threatened the
  >rest follow in help..or something...so we might end in Iraq too

PC>Oh dear...I pray not for this.

This could be true. Then again why are all the other Nato countries
allowed to refuse to go in as combat soldiers when we, who are almost
never used in that capacity, are suddenly there all along ?

In a year the US have elections and everything should change I think.
Even if the Republicans retain power there will probably be a massive
policy shift, plus their dollar should go back up by 20 or 25%.
Bush has purposely devalued the American Dollar to encourage foreign
trade and Americans to buy at home but it is hurting their reputation
in the rest of the world and I doubt the next administration will put
up with it.

RM> into a shooting war? Granted we've lost people attempting to keep
RM> the peace as well but our policy was not to play the world's
RM> police force, but to try to help stabalize a region after the
RM> fighting is finished, often a longer and more thankless job.

PC>Yes...agreed, the lads face the anger and landmines too and other
  >issues with great poise.   The memorys of a UN obersavation tower
  >being bombed by both sides comes to mind.

True..  Few other countries have shown the level of bravery that
Canadian soldiers have when forced by alliance or compassion into
a war but I doubt the rest of the world knows much about that.
Other than a lot of people in Europe who saw it first-hand..

RM> we should choose our battles. I think we could throw soldiers
RM> into Iraq and Afghanistan forever and never make a significant
RM> difference. It's been tried over and over for hundreds of years.

PC>My decendent wrote a book on those areas, as he was assigned to
  >a mission there in the 1870s to install telegraph which was a
  >joint project of those governments and England at the time.

PC>His book reads like a soldier's diary of today...same issues.

Yes, for at least 300 years it's been going on..
Not a lot of arable land so I suppose it's natures method
of birth control there, only slightly preferrable to starvation..

I also read books telling (warning) that removing Saddam Husein
from power would throw the region into uncontrolable fighting and
bring about international terrorism, but apparently Bush didn't
read the same books..

RM> You'd think if they had any intention of getting the country
RM> under control themselves they'd be trying to throw us out by now,
RM> not begging us to stay for many more years.

PC>Makes you wonder whom is running the place?   But they are in chaos.

It's understandable. If someone is offering why not sacrifice
their soldiers instead of your own?  I'm not against helping
another country out but I think direct involvment should have
been restricted to a year or two and after that reduced to
logistical and training support.

RM> I honestly think this whole thing is just to shore up Harper's
RM> image.

PC>I still want an immediate vote in the Parliament on all this, and
  >I never want to see a decison taken like this again by anyone
  >in the PMO  .   This habit has to stop.
  >Parliament is where decisions are decided.

Yes, again, this is more like the US system where the President
is more unilaterally responsible for such things.
Well, the party in power decides. Unless a threat is imminent
(Clear and Present Danger) the President can't go to war without
approval from congress.

PC> RM> Briefly, regarding the election reform issues you mentioned:

PC>They only apply, from what I hear to Ontario.  They must pass by
  >60% ... and I have other questions now about the non-party
  >MPPs who'll be into the taxpayers for their wages.

Yes, I realised I was talking as though it were Federal after.
I had been talking with my sister about what would happen in
the Federal case if this expanded there and it sort of stuck in
my mind since the changes would be, I think, more obvious there.

RM> I believe all we will be doing is making it far more likely
RM> that the system will end up functioning like a minority gov't,
RM> (in other words hardly at all) far more often than it does now.

PC>  The good thing about minority is that it historical functions
  >better then a majority.

If you accomplish next to nothing you do next to nothing wrong ?   :)

PC>As for federal.    I am again lost with no one to vote for.

I know what you mean..
It's always hard to choose the lesser of evils..

---
 * SLMR Rob  * File not found: Loading something that looks similar... *
 * PDQWK 2.52 #17


--- GTMail 1.26