It's an old political tactic. When your party is down in the polls, and the chances of winning another election are slim at best, you go out of your way to screw things up for the other party.

That way, when the other party gets into power, they inherit a mess and you can slam them for their poor performance handling a mess you created !

For example, in BC, the New Democrats knew they were going to lose the next election. Just before the people booted them out in dramatic fashion (they only managed to win 2 of 77 seats), they signed a number of excessive union contracts, knowing it would cause the next government to go into debt.

The plan was to then hammer the new government over their inability to balance the books.

Backfired though. The new government almost immediately tore up those contracts and renegotiated new deals. The unions weren't happy, but they didn't control the new government the way they used to do with the New Dems.

The Republicans are probably doing a little long-range planning. If they lose the 08 elections, they can then blame the Democrats for not dealing with the Iraq situation in a decisive manner.

Pretty crappy way to play the game. They don't really care about the people they are supposed to be serving.

It's all about screwing the other party at what ever cost.

Indeed, and sadely it's done by made parties. Usually specifically by the 'constant rulers'. The ones that are in power the majority of the times and if being cought in a slump they start forcing the wierd issues and end up leaving a big pile of dog-shit to the next (usually one-term) goverment to sort out. Then people will forever remember that term as 'mostly problems'.

The socialist goverment has been doing it in Sweden and will continue to do it this turn around. Election fall of 2006 - with an outlock of regime-change.

So Bush is clueless as usual when hard questions are asked, and has no plans whatsoever to pull out, leaving the next pres. to sort out the mess he's made - it won't be an easy task for anyone.

At least he seems to be getting better at speaking in coherent sentences, much to the relief of the poor suckers who are assigned to coach and train him...

Hmmm, don't know about that. When he goes it free-style (instead of from a prepared statement or tele-prompter), he isn't that great.

Look at those clips where that woman from the press corp cornered him on what his real reason was for invading Iraq.

He started off stuttering, blaming Iraq for harbouring the people involved in 9-11, of harbouring Al-Queda training camps and so on (until he clued in that he was referring to Afghanistan, not Iraq).

Then he went off on how Saddam was a bad man that had tried to kill his Daddy (remember, "Daddy" was the one who kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, and invaded Iraq before Junior).

"No President wants to go to war"

Well, that was a flat out lie. Truman wanted to go to war. The US needed a war to drag it out of the depression. It took him awhile, but he finally managed and the US has been roaring ahead ever since (more or less).

Other presidents have wanted to go to war as well. It's good business (well, for the HUGE defense contractors it is, the people who contribute HUGE money to US politicians. Without these wars, nobody would want to pay billions of dollars for stealth bombers and fighters, cruise missiles, tanks and so on).

Bush jr himself wanted to go to war with Iraq. Was it for oil ? Was it to finish what Daddy started ? Was it revenge for Saddam trying to kill his Daddy ?

No, it was ALL about the WMDs. When it turned out Saddam didn't have any, he had to come up with new reasons why the invasion was still a good idea.

(Wag that Dog George !)

Saddam was a bad guy. He had ties to terrorists. He tried to kill my daddy.

Hmmm. I don't think the American people would have approved invading Iraq for those reasons.

The sad part is, he can't get a grip on the situation in Iraq, yet he has been building up the rhetoric against Iran in much the same way he did to Iraq before invading there. He can't seriously be thinking of invading Iran as well ? At least not yet, and he doesn't have enough time in office to wait for the Iraq situation to stabilize.

Then again he is over due for an invasion of a foreign country. Afghanistan in 2001. Iraq in 2003. Iran in 200?

Where would we be (on ThaiVisa) without dear old George !

So Bush is clueless as usual when hard questions are asked, and has no plans whatsoever to pull out, leaving the next pres. to sort out the mess he's made - it won't be an easy task for anyone.

At least he seems to be getting better at speaking in coherent sentences, much to the relief of the poor suckers who are assigned to coach and train him...

Hmmm, don't know about that. When he goes it free-style (instead of from a prepared statement or tele-prompter), he isn't that great.

Look at those clips where that woman from the press corp cornered him on what his real reason was for invading Iraq.

He started off stuttering, blaming Iraq for harbouring the people involved in 9-11, of harbouring Al-Queda training camps and so on (until he clued in that he was referring to Afghanistan, not Iraq).

Then he went off on how Saddam was a bad man that had tried to kill his Daddy (remember, "Daddy" was the one who kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, and invaded Iraq before Junior).

"No President wants to go to war"

Well, that was a flat out lie. Truman wanted to go to war. The US needed a war to drag it out of the depression. It took him awhile, but he finally managed and the US has been roaring ahead ever since (more or less).

The depression was before WWII and when the war broke out FDR was president. Truman became president when the war was still going on. The war that started during his stay in the White House was the Korean War, and there was no depression then.

Other presidents have wanted to go to war as well. It's good business (well, for the HUGE defense contractors it is, the people who contribute HUGE money to US politicians. Without these wars, nobody would want to pay billions of dollars for stealth bombers and fighters, cruise missiles, tanks and so on).

Bush jr himself wanted to go to war with Iraq. Was it for oil ? Was it to finish what Daddy started ? Was it revenge for Saddam trying to kill his Daddy ?

No, it was ALL about the WMDs. When it turned out Saddam didn't have any, he had to come up with new reasons why the invasion was still a good idea.

(Wag that Dog George !)

Saddam was a bad guy. He had ties to terrorists. He tried to kill my daddy.

Hmmm. I don't think the American people would have approved invading Iraq for those reasons.

The sad part is, he can't get a grip on the situation in Iraq, yet he has been building up the rhetoric against Iran in much the same way he did to Iraq before invading there. He can't seriously be thinking of invading Iran as well ? At least not yet, and he doesn't have enough time in office to wait for the Iraq situation to stabilize.

Then again he is over due for an invasion of a foreign country. Afghanistan in 2001. Iraq in 2003. Iran in 200?

Where would we be (on ThaiVisa) without dear old George !

"No President wants to go to war"

Well, that was a flat out lie. Truman wanted to go to war. The US needed a war to drag it out of the depression. It took him awhile, but he finally managed and the US has been roaring ahead ever since (more or less).

The depression was before WWII and when the war broke out FDR was president. Truman became president when the war was still going on. The war that started during his stay in the White House was the Korean War, and there was no depression then.

My bad.

Replace Truman with FDR. Same premise though. The depression started quite awhile before WWII, and the war was what brought the US out of the depression.

War is just good business ! Makes huge profits for some, improves the economy, secures resources for future use, and lets you do things you couldn't get away with in peacetime !

Oh yeah, it gets rid of some bad people too !

"No President wants to go to war"

Well, that was a flat out lie. Truman wanted to go to war. The US needed a war to drag it out of the depression. It took him awhile, but he finally managed and the US has been roaring ahead ever since (more or less).

The depression was before WWII and when the war broke out FDR was president. Truman became president when the war was still going on. The war that started during his stay in the White House was the Korean War, and there was no depression then.

My bad.

Replace Truman with FDR. Replace FRD with Truman. Same premise though. How so? FDR died of illness during the war leaving Truman, his Vice President to finish it. The depression started quite awhile before WWII, Yes, 1929 and FDR came into office after that serving believe four terms, if you count the one in which he died. and the war was what brought the US out of the depression.

War is just good business ! Makes huge profits for some, improves the economy, secures resources for future use, and lets you do things you couldn't get away with in peacetime !

Oh yeah, it gets rid of some bad people too !

Are you suggesting that America entered WWII for profits. The entire country was isolationist until Pearl Habor. That's why FDR could only send aid to the allies, not men. I think you are doing an incredible diservice to history, the men and women who fought the war and the people who died at Pearl Habor if you believe that WWII was fought by the allies for profit. While I don't entirely disagree with you that money and power drive the war mongers of this world, not all wars are fought for profit, regardless if anyone makes a profit from said war. To suggest otherwise is to be shortsighted and disrepectful to those who fought for ideals and their families.

Are you suggesting that America entered WWII for profits. The entire country was isolationist until Pearl Habor. That's why FDR could only send aid to the allies, not men. I think you are doing an incredible diservice to history, the men and women who fought the war and the people who died at Pearl Habor if you believe that WWII was fought by the allies for profit. While I don't entirely disagree with you that money and power drive the war mongers of this world, not all wars are fought for profit, regardless if anyone makes a profit from said war. To suggest otherwise is to be shortsighted and disrepectful to those who fought for ideals and their families.

Another f___ing Neo-Con, right wing, son of a $%%##!

Are you suggesting that America entered WWII for profits. The entire country was isolationist until Pearl Habor. That's why FDR could only send aid to the allies, not men. I think you are doing an incredible diservice to history, the men and women who fought the war and the people who died at Pearl Habor if you believe that WWII was fought by the allies for profit. While I don't entirely disagree with you that money and power drive the war mongers of this world, not all wars are fought for profit, regardless if anyone makes a profit from said war. To suggest otherwise is to be shortsighted and disrepectful to those who fought for ideals and their families.

Another f___ing Neo-Con, right wing, son of a $%%##!

Naw, just an Amercian with a sense of History.

Are you suggesting that America entered WWII for profits. The entire country was isolationist until Pearl Habor. That's why FDR could only send aid to the allies, not men. I think you are doing an incredible diservice to history, the men and women who fought the war and the people who died at Pearl Habor if you believe that WWII was fought by the allies for profit. While I don't entirely disagree with you that money and power drive the war mongers of this world, not all wars are fought for profit, regardless if anyone makes a profit from said war. To suggest otherwise is to be shortsighted and disrepectful to those who fought for ideals and their families.

Another f___ing Neo-Con, right wing, son of a $%%##!

Naw, just an Amercian with a sense of History.

Just kidding.

I agree with you.

Are you suggesting that America entered WWII for profits. The entire country was isolationist until Pearl Habor. That's why FDR could only send aid to the allies, not men. I think you are doing an incredible diservice to history, the men and women who fought the war and the people who died at Pearl Habor if you believe that WWII was fought by the allies for profit. While I don't entirely disagree with you that money and power drive the war mongers of this world, not all wars are fought for profit, regardless if anyone makes a profit from said war. To suggest otherwise is to be shortsighted and disrepectful to those who fought for ideals and their families.

It wasn't about "profits", but it had a great deal to do with the economy.

America was an isolationist country, and it was hurting their economy, which hadn't recovered from the depression.

America didn't get directly involved in WWII until December, 1941, just over 2 years after the war began.

Being "isolationist", they didn't have an excuse to get involved in a war that involved other countries.

Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany on 3 Sept, 1939, 2 days after the Nazis invaded Poland, even though their own countries hadn't been attacked. (France wasn't invaded until May, 1940).

On 5 Sept 1939, America proclaimed it's neutrality.

It wasn't until America was attacked on 7 Dec 1941 (2 years and 3 months after the war started) that they became directly involved.

The chart below shows the increase in the US economy during the depression and the war years:

USA Nominal GDP (in billions of dollars) (Economics Dept of Miami University)

Year Total $ % Increase

1930.......91.2.......... ------

1931.......76.5.........-16.12%

1932.......58.7.........-23.27%

1933.......56.4...........-3.92%

1934.......66.0..........17.02%

1935.......73.3..........11.06%

1936.......83.8..........14.32%

1937.......91.9.......... 9.67%

1938.......86.1.......... -6.31%

1939.......92.2.......... 7.08%

1940......101.4......... 9.98%

1941......120.67........19.00%

1942......139.06........15.24%

1943......136.44........-1.88%

1944......174.84........28.14%

1945......173.52........-0.75%

Note that the US began a "Preparedness and Conversion" program in 1939, which led to the initial boost in the economy as they prepared for an eventual war.

Despite the 2 years with small negative numbers, the overall increase works out to 59.75 % for the 5 years 41-45. For the 10 year period of 31-40, the increase was 19.51% (remove the 2 years of "Preparedness and Conversion" and the total increase drops to 2.45% over 8 years).

So, the preparation for the war, and the war itself gave the economy a 76.81% boost !

I'm not trying to belittle the US involvement in the war in any way. Without the US, the war would have been lost. The Allies (prior to the US involvement) could barely supply enough manpower and equipment to defend themselves, let alone take the fight to the enemy, and that was just in Europe !

(My step-grandfather was a US Navy destroyer captain in the Pacific when the war ended).

From Wikipedia:

"World War II holds a special place in the American psyche as the country's greatest triumph, and the soldiers of World War II are frequently referred to as "the greatest generation" for their sacrifices in the name of liberty. Over 16 million served (about 13% of the population), and over 400,000 were killed during the war; only the American Civil War saw more Americans killed.

The US entered the war, like many other nations, as a country struggling with economic and social problems and unsure of its identity."

The people who actually fight the wars do fight for principles (Duty, Honour, Family, Patriotism and so on).

Sadly though, the people who start the wars don't always do it for those same reasons.

Interesting.

I thought one of the reasons the US stayed out of the war was fear of losing out economically, i.e. profitable business ties with the Nazis.

Just a thought, I am not an expert on the economic and political intricacies of that time.

Interesting.

I thought one of the reasons the US stayed out of the war was fear of losing out economically, i.e. profitable business ties with the Nazis.

Just a thought, I am not an expert on the economic and political intricacies of that time.

No, that was just the Bush family financing the Nazi party. They learned a lot from that time.

Interesting.

I thought one of the reasons the US stayed out of the war was fear of losing out economically, i.e. profitable business ties with the Nazis.

Just a thought, I am not an expert on the economic and political intricacies of that time.

I've read a lot of books about the different wars, but that is the first I heard of that theory.

Even if they had of had some pre-war economic ties to Nazi Germany, they couldn't have been too profitable as the chart I quoted shows.

There were 'economic ties' right up to '39, when the Us gov put a legal hold on this, and yes, the involvement of the Bush family in financing at that time made me have a closer look, but I am afraid I don't have the info at hand.

Anyway, interesting to see a very different point of view, they don't necessarily contradict each other, could have been different interest groups there.

My Kind Of Dog

Clinton gets a mustache!

Are you suggesting that America entered WWII for profits. The entire country was isolationist until Pearl Habor. That's why FDR could only send aid to the allies, not men. I think you are doing an incredible diservice to history, the men and women who fought the war and the people who died at Pearl Habor if you believe that WWII was fought by the allies for profit. While I don't entirely disagree with you that money and power drive the war mongers of this world, not all wars are fought for profit, regardless if anyone makes a profit from said war. To suggest otherwise is to be shortsighted and disrepectful to those who fought for ideals and their families.

It wasn't about "profits", but it had a great deal to do with the economy.

America was an isolationist country, and it was hurting their economy, which hadn't recovered from the depression.

America didn't get directly involved in WWII until December, 1941, just over 2 years after the war began.

Being "isolationist", they didn't have an excuse to get involved in a war that involved other countries.

Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany on 3 Sept, 1939, 2 days after the Nazis invaded Poland, even though their own countries hadn't been attacked. (France wasn't invaded until May, 1940).

On 5 Sept 1939, America proclaimed it's neutrality.

It wasn't until America was attacked on 7 Dec 1941 (2 years and 3 months after the war started) that they became directly involved.

The chart below shows the increase in the US economy during the depression and the war years:

USA Nominal GDP (in billions of dollars) (Economics Dept of Miami University)

Year Total $ % Increase

1930.......91.2.......... ------

1931.......76.5.........-16.12%

1932.......58.7.........-23.27%

1933.......56.4...........-3.92%

1934.......66.0..........17.02%

1935.......73.3..........11.06%

1936.......83.8..........14.32%

1937.......91.9.......... 9.67%

1938.......86.1.......... -6.31%

1939.......92.2.......... 7.08%

1940......101.4......... 9.98%

1941......120.67........19.00%

1942......139.06........15.24%

1943......136.44........-1.88%

1944......174.84........28.14%

1945......173.52........-0.75%

Note that the US began a "Preparedness and Conversion" program in 1939, which led to the initial boost in the economy as they prepared for an eventual war.

Despite the 2 years with small negative numbers, the overall increase works out to 59.75 % for the 5 years 41-45. For the 10 year period of 31-40, the increase was 19.51% (remove the 2 years of "Preparedness and Conversion" and the total increase drops to 2.45% over 8 years).

So, the preparation for the war, and the war itself gave the economy a 76.81% boost !

Does this take into account the massive social programs started by the FDR administration to combat the depression? So many programs where started just to get people back to work that I thnk that would have had an effect on the numbers that you show.

I'm not trying to belittle the US involvement in the war in any way. Without the US, the war would have been lost. The Allies (prior to the US involvement) could barely supply enough manpower and equipment to defend themselves, let alone take the fight to the enemy, and that was just in Europe !

(My step-grandfather was a US Navy destroyer captain in the Pacific when the war ended).

From Wikipedia:

"World War II holds a special place in the American psyche as the country's greatest triumph, and the soldiers of World War II are frequently referred to as "the greatest generation" for their sacrifices in the name of liberty. Over 16 million served (about 13% of the population), and over 400,000 were killed during the war; only the American Civil War saw more Americans killed.

The US entered the war, like many other nations, as a country struggling with economic and social problems and unsure of its identity."

The people who actually fight the wars do fight for principles (Duty, Honour, Family, Patriotism and so on).

Sadly though, the people who start the wars don't always do it for those same reasons.

This I can agree with. I just don't think Truman or FDR was the war loving type, which is why I started this in the first place. I think Bush doesn't have a clue what war really is and it's messed up a lot of things. His father knew war better and was in and out of the middle east before they knew what hit them. I think Bush should have a sit down talk with daddy.

So, the preparation for the war, and the war itself gave the economy a 76.81% boost !

Does this take into account the massive social programs started by the FDR administration to combat the depression? So many programs where started just to get people back to work that I thnk that would have had an effect on the numbers that you show.

You are referring to "The New Deal" program I think ?

It was not until the U.S. entered World War II that Roosevelt's ideas for massive public expenditures and deficit spending truly began to bear fruit. Roosevelt's administration, of course, had little choice but to increase expenditures, given the war effort. Even given the special circumstances of war mobilization, New Deal policies seemed to work exactly as predicted, winning over many Republicans, who had been the New Deal's greatest opponents. When the Great Depression was brought to an end by the Second World War, it was obvious that the turnaround had been caused primarily by the reinforcement of business through government expenditure.

In truth Roosevelt had foreseen from early in his Presidency that only a solution to the international trade problem would finally end the depression, and that the New Deal was, to no small extent, a "holding action". He contemplated precipitating a war with Japan early on, in hopes of dealing with the problem early. However, the intensity of the economic crisis convinced him that before the world situation could be dealt with, the United States would have to put its own fiscal house back in order.

His original conception was that the New Deal would restore circumstances which would allow for a return to balanced budgets and an international gold standard. It was only gradually that he came to the conclusion that it was essential to remake the U.S. economy in a more extensive fashion, particularly because of the "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937, when he had balanced the budget by restricting fiscal support to the economy.

This I can agree with. I just don't think Truman or FDR was the war loving type, which is why I started this in the first place. I think Bush doesn't have a clue what war really is and it's messed up a lot of things. His father knew war better and was in and out of the middle east before they knew what hit them. I think Bush should have a sit down talk with daddy.

I like the part about FDR contemplating starting a war with Japan.

And the part where the Republicans had been the biggest opponents of the plan

I could go on and on about the New Deal program. It appears that FDR's initiatives were slowly turning things around and would have eventually gotten the country back on it's feet. WWII gave it an adrenaline boost that propelled it into the 21st century (and beyond !).

I have a question. Why the hel_l am I spending so much time reciting American history, to Americans ! I'm Canadian d@mn it ! I should be watching hockey in my igloo with my dog-sled team howling around me (Right CdnVic ? )

I'm going back to the Last Word !

No Bias Here

No Bias Here

She's too far gone for even the "leftist" media !

I do find it funny, sitting in the center, watching both sides spin the news to their advantage.

It is a mirror image of the way many threads go here on TV. 2 groups battling each other for posting supremacy.

That's why I like to (occasionally) take a jab at both sides, to try and level things out. Too many people here are too locked into their opinions to be able to see the whole picture. They only look at things that appear to reinforce their opinion, or slag their opponents position.

The truth ? It's only useful if it supports your position. Otherwise it's ignored, or glossed over with attacks on the characters of their opponents.

This is almost as much fun as sitting in a Walking Street bar late at night, watching all the people walking by in various states of inebriation and dress.

So, the preparation for the war, and the war itself gave the economy a 76.81% boost !

Does this take into account the massive social programs started by the FDR administration to combat the depression? So many programs where started just to get people back to work that I thnk that would have had an effect on the numbers that you show.

You are referring to "The New Deal" program I think ?

It was not until the U.S. entered World War II that Roosevelt's ideas for massive public expenditures and deficit spending truly began to bear fruit. Roosevelt's administration, of course, had little choice but to increase expenditures, given the war effort. Even given the special circumstances of war mobilization, New Deal policies seemed to work exactly as predicted, winning over many Republicans, who had been the New Deal's greatest opponents. When the Great Depression was brought to an end by the Second World War, it was obvious that the turnaround had been caused primarily by the reinforcement of business through government expenditure.

In truth Roosevelt had foreseen from early in his Presidency that only a solution to the international trade problem would finally end the depression, and that the New Deal was, to no small extent, a "holding action". He contemplated precipitating a war with Japan early on, in hopes of dealing with the problem early. However, the intensity of the economic crisis convinced him that before the world situation could be dealt with, the United States would have to put its own fiscal house back in order.

His original conception was that the New Deal would restore circumstances which would allow for a return to balanced budgets and an international gold standard. It was only gradually that he came to the conclusion that it was essential to remake the U.S. economy in a more extensive fashion, particularly because of the "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937, when he had balanced the budget by restricting fiscal support to the economy.

This I can agree with. I just don't think Truman or FDR was the war loving type, which is why I started this in the first place. I think Bush doesn't have a clue what war really is and it's messed up a lot of things. His father knew war better and was in and out of the middle east before they knew what hit them. I think Bush should have a sit down talk with daddy.

I like the part about FDR contemplating starting a war with Japan.

And the part where the Republicans had been the biggest opponents of the plan

I could go on and on about the New Deal program. It appears that FDR's initiatives were slowly turning things around and would have eventually gotten the country back on it's feet. WWII gave it an adrenaline boost that propelled it into the 21st century (and beyond !).

I have a question. Why the hel_l am I spending so much time reciting American history, to Americans ! I'm Canadian d@mn it ! I should be watching hockey in my igloo with my dog-sled team howling around me (Right CdnVic ? )

I'm going back to the Last Word !

Canadian history is boring?

Canadian history is boring?

cv might take issue with this but the reality is Canada depends upon the US for it's National Security. Therefore, when world events take place, it's poor old Uncle Sam who's right in the thick of it. Not to say there isn't a token Canadian Armed Forces Unit present in Afganistan (Kerryd) and they were right in there during WW2, but by-in-large, not a lot happens to our neighbor to the north.

If I were Canadian, and had Uncle Sam watching my back, I'd be a sniveling liberal too.

If I were Canadian, and had Uncle Sam watching my back, I'd be a sniveling liberal too.

Careful Ulysses G, cv considers himself to be a Conservative.

Not sure what Conservative in Canada translates to in the US tho...

If I were Canadian, and had Uncle Sam watching my back, I'd be a sniveling liberal too.

Careful Ulysses G, cv considers himself to be a Conservative.

Not sure what Conservative in Canada translates to in the US tho...

He seems to be a moderate from the posts that I've seen (and enjoyed).

However, it is a lot easier to be a moderate when your country is not being run down by every lying duplicious, lowly dirtbag on the planet.

Canadian history is boring?

cv might take issue with this but the reality is Canada depends upon the US for it's National Security. Therefore, when world events take place, it's poor old Uncle Sam who's right in the thick of it. Not to say there isn't a token Canadian Armed Forces Unit present in Afganistan (Kerryd) and they were right in there during WW2, but by-in-large, not a lot happens to our neighbor to the north.

We wouldn't consider our history boring at all. When you consider that a large portion of Americans can't even locate the 2nd largest country in the world on a map, it's not surprising they would know nothing of our history either.

It's sad but true that after WWII and especially after the Korean conflict, the government started viewing the military more as a way of saving money (by decreasing their size and budgets), than as a means of defending the country.

To be fair, in those days, many people thought the next war would be fought with bombers and nukes, not tanks and troops.

Too many Liberal governments gutted the forces until the entire military stood at around 60,000 people. Many, many people criticised the government, and openly suggested the main reason for the cuts was the expectation that the US would protect us (in their own best interests).

The government also decided we would have a better international image as Peace-Keepers, rather than War Makers. Peace-Keeping conveniently didn't require as large of military.

This did create a quandry though. Without a large military, capable of projecting itself anywhere in the world, Canada's political clout (internationally) took a beating. Politicians liked to talk a good fight, but couldn't back it up with any kind of force.

Politicians were worried about bad press that might result if troops started coming home in body-bags, and refused to commit to anything that they considered too dangerous.

We did commit a battalion to the initial invasion of Afghanistan (in fact, one of our snipers now holds the record for longest kill as a result), and we have a couple thousand troops there now as a part of the International force (which is currently commanded by a Canadian).

The newly elected Conservative government is committed to increasing the military. It is a positive sign (as long as they stay in power) but it will take years to get back to a respectable level.

It has long been a sore point of mine and others, the way the military was chopped down to something that couldn't defend out smallest province, let alone the country.

It was just a little joke, I wasn't serious.

When you consider that a large portion of Americans can't even locate the 2nd largest country in the world on a map, it's not surprising they would know nothing of our history either.

If you beleive that most Americans can't find Canada on a map, you better cut down on listening to the Howard Stern show.

The Homeless Game is amusing, but it doesn't represent reality!

If you beleive that most Americans can't find Canada on a map, you better cut down on listening to the Howard Stern show.

The Homeless Game is amusing, but it doesn't represent reality!

Actually, a well known Canadian comedian does this thing where he asks Americans questions about Canada. Often they are silly questions, like asking them what they think about Prime Minister "Poutine" winning the election ("Poutine" is a Quebec snack consisting of french fries covered in cheese and gravy. Jean Cretien was the Prime Minister at the time).

The answers are often as hilarious as the questions, and are used to show just how little Americans know about Canada.

And the part about not being able to find Canada on a map ? That came from a report on the state of the American education system a few years ago, where it was noted that many High School graduates couldn't locate their home state on a map, let alone some of the major countries in the world.

I've never listened to Stern, but have heard of him through various news articles.

Don't Worry - Be Happy!

Global civilization is on the verge of "World War III," a massive conflict in which the Islamic world will attempt to impose its ideology on Western nations, according to Meir Amit, a former director of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency. ['We're on the eve of World War III']

If I were Canadian, and had Uncle Sam watching my back, I'd be a sniveling liberal too.

Careful Ulysses G, cv considers himself to be a Conservative.

Not sure what Conservative in Canada translates to in the US tho...

Conservative Canadian = Likes his maple syrup cold.