PDA

View Full Version : Canadian PM Calls himself Unamerican



Praxus
25 May 04,, 01:43
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040524%2F1552593041.htm&sc=roitz&photoid=20040524LIB112&floc=NW_2-T

Higher taxes and pathetic social programs is not something to be proud of.

Everyone thinks these Social Programs are something new and special and a change from the past. But the pathetic truth is the Government has been dicking around in economics and medicine since the begining of civilization and the only time we made great progress is when the Government stayed out.

Officer of Engineers
25 May 04,, 01:55
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040524%2F1552593041.htm&sc=roitz&photoid=20040524LIB112&floc=NW_2-T

Higher taxes and pathetic social programs is not something to be proud of.

Everyone thinks these Social Programs are something new and special and a change from the past. But the pathetic truth is the Government has been dicking around in economics and medicine since the begining of civilization and the only time we made great progress is when the Government stayed out.

Between a rock and a hard place. Martin is playing the only card available to him after the Liberal Party of Ontario shafted Ontario (the most powerful province in Canada) with 9 bil$ in health care tax hikes.

Praxus
25 May 04,, 02:54
So by making up for it he is going to promiss more tax hikes!

There is some logic for you.

Officer of Engineers
25 May 04,, 03:20
So by making up for it he is going to promiss more tax hikes!

There is some logic for you.

Don't know about that. Martin was a tax cutter and he has a balanced budget. What he's saying is that don't expect any more tax cuts, as opposed to Harper, who is promising tax cuts.

ZFBoxcar
25 May 04,, 04:15
Martin himself is not anti-American...but unfortunatly he is playing that angle to gain support. Sadly there are many in this country that think to be strong we have to despise and insult the US.

Officer of Engineers
25 May 04,, 04:20
I am probably going to vote Liberal. NDP is out of the question and the Conservatives scares the hell out of me. They're going to try to act like a mini-Blair, in trying to match every US committement without giving us the badly needed rest that we actually need.

Praxus
26 May 04,, 01:35
Your willing to vote for a party that believes the Canadian Healthcare system is and I quote "the envy of the world"?

How about you vote for Conservitive, they will increase defense spending and the size of the military and you won't need resting periods.

ChrisF202
26 May 04,, 01:51
Discusting, very discusting. Just when I thaught we got a friend up to the North he backstabs us in favor of trying to get more support. OOE, why not vote conservative and stop these liberal America bashers from taking office?

Confed999
26 May 04,, 02:01
Higher taxes from "free healthcare"? I don't believe anything the government does could cost so much money, they are all so efficent!
Even now the law suits against the drug manufacturers are starting for their sale of medicines to Cancada/etc, for less than here. If that changes, hopefully soon because Canada doesn't need any price breaks, Canadian taxes will go up up up.

Officer of Engineers
26 May 04,, 02:22
Your willing to vote for a party that believes the Canadian Healthcare system is and I quote "the envy of the world"?

How about you vote for Conservitive, they will increase defense spending and the size of the military and you won't need resting periods.

Doesn't work that way. Even if you give me $20bil today, I can't get 5,000 people trained for at least two years. In fact, I can't start training recruits until my instructors come back from being deployed. We've emptied our schools of our DIs just to meet the Haiti committement.

With Harper in place, I am terrified that we will never be able to get our instructors back and rebuild my army.


OOE, why not vote conservative and stop these liberal America bashers from taking office?

About the only difference between them is the anti-US bashing (or lack thereof) but policy wise, the conservatives ain't any better. They were the ones who got Canada into that big debt crisis (cutting taxes while not reducing spending).

The Conservatives are foreign affairs hawks. I'm getting the feeling that Harper is a mini-Rumsfeld who does not think things through. The Conservatives has NOT learned from the Somali fiasco that resulted in the disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. I do not want a repeat of that fiasco.

ChrisF202
26 May 04,, 02:33
The Conservatives has NOT learned from the Somali fiasco that resulted in the disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. I do not want a repeat of that fiasco.
Sorry to change the topic, but what was the reason behind the disbanding?

Praxus
26 May 04,, 02:45
Isn't what you are sugesting, a little short sighted?

"Let's not fight WW3, it might make our troops tired!"

What is amazing is that the United States in the late 1800's the taxes were less then 10% of the US GDP and we had a surplus. We could pay for all the legal purposes of Government. This shows to me that excess Government spending causes national dept, not a cut in taxes. You should be fighting to cut taxes and spending. Not just give up on the first because the later isn't being done.

Confed999
26 May 04,, 03:24
Sorry to change the topic, but what was the reason behind the disbanding?
Torture and murder in Somalia. Canada, Belgium and Italy all had soldiers on trial for atrocities that occured in Somalia, I believe.

ZFBoxcar
26 May 04,, 03:57
Unfortuntly I can't vote this election because I am only 17...so close lol.

Although I can give an example of how apparent the distrust of the Liberal Party is: My parents, who are both teachers, my father a high school teacher in the public system, are considering voting Conservative. This is after the provincial Conservatives (according to them, and I suppose I have to trust their opinions on this) completely destroyed the education system. To be fair, the province controls education so the federal government had nothing to do with it. But still, these people have never considered voting conservative in their lives! They always vote liberal and I think my mom has voted NDP a couple times. And now a switch to the Conservatives...Conservatives under Harper no less.

I happen to like Harper, he is very blunt and makes bold critisisms of the way Canada works (tempered by making it seem as though it is entirely the Liberal Party's fault, and most of it is I suppose). The Liberals have taken to calling him un-Canadian but he has responded very well to this with: "any government that considers those who support lower taxes unCanadian deserves to be destroyed [paraphrase].

We do need lower taxes. We do need P3 Health Care (Public Private Partnerships like Ontario is fiddling with), we do need to stop transfer payments to Atlantic Canada and Quebec, we do need an elected Senate, we do need free votes in Parliament (as it stands right now, the Conservative Party is the only one that allows its MPs to vote against the party leader), we do need increased funding and expansion of the armed forces, and we need to stop alienating the US. Stephen Harper will do all of these things I believe. The only question I can think of is the one the Colonel raised: Will he wreck our armed forces in the process of trying to fix our foreign policy? I do not think Canadian troops would be sent to Iraq in the event of a Conservative victory. I think it would make him too unpopular if he did it immediately. OOE, how much new funding do you think the Conservatives would give the army? And how much time would you need to rebuild (I know thats a tricky question since I am not specifying what the ideal is for the Canadian forces, but you know that far better than I do)? I can see Canadian troops going to Iraq after maybe 2 or 3 years, depending on the state of both Iraq and of the CF. Maybe I am naive to trust Harper not to send them in straight away, but thats my 2 cents.

Officer of Engineers
26 May 04,, 05:07
Isn't what you are sugesting, a little short sighted?

"Let's not fight WW3, it might make our troops tired!"

The situation is far worst than that. We have NOBODY left, including our instructors. It is akin to stripping the NTC and sending all the senior people of the 11ACR over to Iraq indefnetely. So, how is your army going to meet qualifications? Well, we've sent our Battle School people over from the 2 RCR to Haiti.

We need to bring our people home, not so much as to send them to Hawaii but to rebuild the entire unit from the ground up. Accumulate all the Lessons Learned, write them down, fix what's broken (including guns, trucks, and people), and get the train the next batch of people going on deployment.

The reality is that we're so short of people that if we don't bring our instructors home, we won't have an army in two years. Most of our instructors are slated to leave the army in two to five years. We need them to start training their replacements NOW in order to get their replacements qualified to be instructors.

Harper is not understanding this. I'm not hearing him bringing my people home. I'm hearing him to be a foriegn affairs hawk. I'm hearing him wanting to send my people over to Iraq while KEEPING our Bosnian, Afghan, and Haiti committements. Harper's solution is to throw money (I don't know where he's going to get it AND keep tax cuts) at the military while NOT providing direction, the EXACT same problem we had under the former Conservative Prime Minsiter, Kim Campbell <spit> (sorry, M21, I had to borrow your image).


What is amazing is that the United States in the late 1800's the taxes were less then 10% of the US GDP and we had a surplus. We could pay for all the legal purposes of Government. This shows to me that excess Government spending causes national dept, not a cut in taxes. You should be fighting to cut taxes and spending. Not just give up on the first because the later isn't being done.

Amazingly enough, the guy who did this was Paul Martin. He cut both taxes and spending (more so the latter than the former). It was a wretched 12 years for us when Ottawa keep slicing the defence budget while increasing our committements.

At this point, I don't know how much further anyone can cut taxes, at least not reducing services that we're used to.

Harper may be a Conservative by party but even he cannot cut the social net any more than Martin already did. Under Martin, Ottawa had surpluses three past years running (but then again, so did Clinton). Those surpluses, Martin is keeping one third as a buffer, one third to reduce the debt, one third to cut taxes. Martin is keeping the first two as the priority.




Sorry to change the topic, but what was the reason behind the disbanding?

Torture and murder in Somalia. Canada, Belgium and Italy all had soldiers on trial for atrocities that occured in Somalia, I believe.

The final straw that broke the camal's back was a Hazing Video of 1 Commando, CAR. The real reason is that Ottawa didn't like realize that the CAR was a bunch of hooligans and when the Canadian public saw hooligan acts, they've disbanded.

A bit of history here.

The CAR is raised by recruiting from the rest of the CF, primarily 1 Commando is raised by recruiting members of the Royal 22nd Regiment (Van Doos), 2 Commando is raised through the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry, and 3 Commando from the Royal Canadian Regiment.

The CAR also is first at the money trough. The Special Operations Group which is centred on the CAR was located at CFB Petawawa. Essentially, this battalion had the money of a brigade.

This left the other regiments somewhat annoy in that the CAR not only recruit their best people but also their funds. When the deployment crunch and cash crunch start hitting the CF, the regforce regiments started to hold back their best people (by offerring faster career paths than what the CAR can offer) and hence, the CAR started getting the runts of the regiments. Add to this, that when Somalia just start hitting the news, the regt staff has been lifers and started looking towards retirement (ie hanging on by their finger nails until their retirement date), they started to let things slide (why bother disciplining idiotic hooligans who are too stupid to learn when you only got two months left?)

Then, the regt itself feels it can do no wrong. Colonel Serge Lebae (whom I have a real big problem with) is everything that was wrong with the regt. All balls and no brains. There was a rumour that he issued an order in Somalia that the first section to kill a Somali would get a free case of beer. I have strong doubts that he issued such an order but what gets my goat was that when he learned of it, he did not immediately issue counter-orders to the opposite.

This being said, the disbanding of the Regiment was a coward's act. Things were being fixed. The old Regt Staff was kicked out replaced by fresh blood who didn't take crap. The hooligans were hit where it hurt the most - they were fined for every violation (lack of beer money really hurts).

Officer of Engineers
26 May 04,, 05:31
I happen to like Harper, he is very blunt and makes bold critisisms of the way Canada works (tempered by making it seem as though it is entirely the Liberal Party's fault, and most of it is I suppose). The Liberals have taken to calling him un-Canadian but he has responded very well to this with: "any government that considers those who support lower taxes unCanadian deserves to be destroyed [paraphrase].

No, most were the Conservatives own fault - ala Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell. One of the biggest disaster in Canadian economic history - the Goods and Services Tax was brought in by Mulroney.


We do need lower taxes. We do need P3 Health Care (Public Private Partnerships like Ontario is fiddling with), we do need to stop transfer payments to Atlantic Canada and Quebec, we do need an elected Senate, we do need free votes in Parliament (as it stands right now, the Conservative Party is the only one that allows its MPs to vote against the party leader), we do need increased funding and expansion of the armed forces, and we need to stop alienating the US. Stephen Harper will do all of these things I believe.

No, he won't.

1) He doesn't have the time (5 years ain't long enough to do everything.
2) He needs the votes.
3) Ontario will NEVER tolerate a PM who advocates the breaking up of Canada (ie alienating Quebec and the Maritimes).
4) Outside of Ontario, every province has benefitted from transfer payments and ONLY Quebec has received less than what she has put into it since Confederation.
5) Free votes? Only on issues that don't matter. The old bickering of the Alliance Party was a laugh and a half and they had the "free" vote.



The only question I can think of is the one the Colonel raised: Will he wreck our armed forces in the process of trying to fix our foreign policy? I do not think Canadian troops would be sent to Iraq in the event of a Conservative victory. I think it would make him too unpopular if he did it immediately. OOE, how much new funding do you think the Conservatives would give the army? And how much time would you need to rebuild (I know thats a tricky question since I am not specifying what the ideal is for the Canadian forces, but you know that far better than I do)? I can see Canadian troops going to Iraq after maybe 2 or 3 years, depending on the state of both Iraq and of the CF. Maybe I am naive to trust Harper not to send them in straight away, but thats my 2 cents.

Five years is a long time and the Canadian voter can't remember that far back. I remember that Yugoslavia was supposed to be a six month mission. He can send a mission on election day and the Canadian voter got five years to get use to it.

In actual reality, Harper isn't going to give us any more money than what Martin has promised. The reason is that the CF can't wait for the money trough to open. We have to get the job done today. We've already projected our ten year requirements and submitted to Treasury. Big ticket items like the Maritime Helicopter Project, air and sea lift replacements, JSF, LAV-105s are already asked for and approved. We won't be going to Treasury asking for B-2s and LA Class subs.

ZFBoxcar
26 May 04,, 18:04
I thought Mulruny was just trying to repair the damage that Trudeau did (mostly unsuccessfully) and if looked at from that perspective its still the Liberals fault.

Cutting off or reducing transfer payments would not destroy Canada. It would piss off the maritimes for sure, but not THAT badly. I think Ontarians would vote for someone who stop sending their dollars east to pay for the votes of other provinces towards a party that doesn't support their interests.

As for military funding, a recent poll indicates 1 in 6 Canadians think national defence is an important issue as apposed to 1-3% for most of the 90s. While not the biggest part of Harper's campaign, I don't see how he can NOT increase funding when that is one of the things that separates the Liberals and Conservatives, and him and Paul Martin in particular.

ChrisF202
26 May 04,, 18:32
Torture and murder in Somalia. Canada, Belgium and Italy all had soldiers on trial for atrocities that occured in Somalia, I believe.
Thanks Confed and OOE, becuase US Army MP commited atrocities in Iraq do we disband them? No. The dismandment was a severe overreation.

Trooth
26 May 04,, 20:19
Isn't it a good thing that a Canadian PM wants to be Canadian, as opposed to being American? Its a bit like saying he is "unMexican", also good. I don't think the mounties would look better in bigger hats.

Ronald Reagan was very definitely wrong when he insisted that "everyone is an American".

ZFBoxcar
26 May 04,, 20:47
the problem is that many Canadians define Canada as simply not being the United States, and will do everything to not be the United States, willing to do bad things to the country for the cause of not being the United States. For Paul Martin to count himself among them is bad news because he always seemed to be friendly with the US.

ChrisF202
26 May 04,, 22:58
For Paul Martin to count himself among them is bad news because he always seemed to be friendly with the US.
I was going to say, I thaught he wanted to be our friend :frown: One less friend for us :mad:

Trooth
26 May 04,, 23:04
Obviously the candians here have far more local knowledge than me. But there is nothing in that article that is antagonistic towards the US, it seems to be, if i may brutally paraphrase it "Canadian solutions for Canadian problems".

ZFBoxcar
27 May 04,, 00:02
I suppose so, though if there were nothing popular about anti-American sentiment, he wouldn't need to say he was unAmerican.

Trooth
27 May 04,, 00:49
Again you guys will no more than me about what he is saying, but he didn't use that word in that article.

Officer of Engineers
27 May 04,, 01:11
Thanks Confed and OOE, becuase US Army MP commited atrocities in Iraq do we disband them? No. The dismandment was a severe overreation.

The 800th MP Bde warrants disbandment. It's failure is across the board from the Bde CO down to the Pvt. Also, their attrocities has severely compromised their abilities to do their mission which is to guard the EPWs.

The CAR, despite all its faults, accomplished all its OPOBJs, the only unit in all of Somalia that can claim such a feat. Also, the reaction was immediate and hard. The guilty parties were immediately arrested and sent back to Canada for due process. Its ability to carry out its mission was not compromised.


I was going to say, I thaught he wanted to be our friend. One less friend for us

Nothing un-American about implementing non-American solutions within Canada. All Martin said was that we cannot do American style government and keep the Canadian style of life.

As for our relationship, Martin is ready to commit Canada to NMD.

Confed999
27 May 04,, 01:37
The 800th MP Bde warrants disbandment. It's failure is across the board from the Bde CO down to the Pvt. Also, their attrocities has severely compromised their abilities to do their mission which is to guard the EPWs.
I agree...

Officer of Engineers
27 May 04,, 05:37
I thought Mulruny was just trying to repair the damage that Trudeau did (mostly unsuccessfully) and if looked at from that perspective its still the Liberals fault.

Do some research on Meech Lake and you will know the difference between Trudeau and Mulroney. Mulroney fucked up on Meech Lake, no question.


Cutting off or reducing transfer payments would not destroy Canada. It would piss off the maritimes for sure, but not THAT badly. I think Ontarians would vote for someone who stop sending their dollars east to pay for the votes of other provinces towards a party that doesn't support their interests.

Yes, it will. The Maritimes were self sustaining before Confederation, not after.


As for military funding, a recent polluot indicates 1 in 6 Canadians think national defence is an important issue as apposed to 1-3% for most of the 90s. While not the biggest part of Harper's campaign, I don't see how he can NOT increase funding when that is one of the things that separates the Liberals and Conservatives, and him and Paul Martin in particular.

Harper scares the hell out of me, particularily I can close my eyes and hear Kim Cambell. I can give you her speeches and you won't be able to tell the difference. SHE WAS THE ONE WHO FUCKED UP THE CF!

ZFBoxcar
27 May 04,, 05:43
Do some research on Meech Lake and you will know the difference between Trudeau and Mulroney. Mulroney fucked up on Meech Lake, no question.

I thought we were talking about the economy.


Yes, it will. The Maritimes were self sustaining before Confederation, not after.

What do you suggest then? They can't keep going the way they are now, thats not good for anyone. Their economies will not improve just by handing them a cheque every budget.


Harper scares the hell out of me, particularily I can close my eyes and hear Kim Cambell. I can give you her speeches and you won't be able to tell the difference. SHE WAS THE ONE WHO FUCKED UP THE CF!

I admit, I know next to nothing about Kim Cambell. I never realized she did all that much. I figured she was just filling the gap between Mulruny and the next election but not really putting in new policies. Like I said, I haven't researched it, and I was a little kid when she was PM.

Ironduke
27 May 04,, 06:05
Colonel,

What do you think of Canadian demands for a triple-E senate?

Officer of Engineers
27 May 04,, 06:25
I thought we were talking about the economy.

Mulroney was no different than Trudeau in that score. Both were high spenders, betting on the next generation to pay for their programs. Mulroney betted on the Free Trade Agreement but banked on the GST.


What do you suggest then? They can't keep going the way they are now, thats not good for anyone. Their economies will not improve just by handing them a cheque every budget.

Three things killed the Maritimes after Confederation - Labrador's electricity granted to Quebec, the end of the Seal Hunt, and the Overfishing of the Grand Banks. Returning their rights to manage these resources would restore their economic ends to no bounds.


I admit, I know next to nothing about Kim Cambell. I never realized she did all that much. I figured she was just filling the gap between Mulruny and the next election but not really putting in new policies. Like I said, I haven't researched it, and I was a little kid when she was PM.

She was also MND during the Somali affair. The simple fact is that the Conservatives ain't any better with US relations than the Liberals. We were prepared to send 4 Bde to the Kuwait War and the Americans asked for 4 Bde. Gen Fred Franks Jr respected us that much that he requested us. Instead, Mulrouney send two coys to protect a hospital and a reduced CF-18 wing.

I remembered a flash messeage to the MND (Campbell) demanding her attention to the Somali situation. Like Hitler during D-Day Invasion, she was too fucking busy to reply.

Harper ain't any better. Martin and Pratt at least know that we need a rest (two years if possible). Harper's talk is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.

Officer of Engineers
27 May 04,, 06:29
Colonel,

What do you think of Canadian demands for a triple-E senate?

Not going to happen and Canadians don't want it to happen. We had over 150 years to change the Senate and if we didn't do it by now, we ain't going to do it anytime soon. It's not like the incentive wasn't there. Lower Canada, ie Quebec, had more chances to change this British rule system than anyone else. They didn't.

themuffinman
27 May 04,, 18:47
Isn't it a good thing that a Canadian PM wants to be Canadian, as opposed to being American? Its a bit like saying he is "unMexican", also good. I don't think the mounties would look better in bigger hats.

Ronald Reagan was very definitely wrong when he insisted that "everyone is an American".
Canada is in North America. There is north america, central america, and south america so I think it does make us all americans. Just like europe you are europeans.

Trooth
27 May 04,, 21:03
Canada is in North America. There is north america, central america, and south america so I think it does make us all americans. Just like europe you are europeans.

So, that is what you mean by UnAmerican, you mean "not of the American continents"?

See why i asked what it meant? I'd never have got that one.

So, North and South Americans can all be classed as American because they all share the same values, systems of government, priorites religions and econmies. What a homogenous bunch you are. Or just that you al stand on a contiguous rocky outcrop (Panama Canal notwithstanding).

Yes, all Europeans are European, although i will always be British before anything else. But Ronnie was wrong, i am not American.

ZFBoxcar
27 May 04,, 22:16
muffinman was just making a point, the article and comments in question were referring to the USA.

Ironduke
27 May 04,, 22:30
Canada is in North America. There is north america, central america, and south america so I think it does make us all americans. Just like europe you are europeans.
Just because the continents have the name America in them doesn't make everybody living in them an American. People from South America are South Americans, people from North America are North Americans, but only people from the US are Americans.

ChrisF202
27 May 04,, 23:22
I agree, the only Americans are those in the US. Canadians are NA, as are Mexicans

Ironduke
28 May 04,, 00:33
Not going to happen and Canadians don't want it to happen. We had over 150 years to change the Senate and if we didn't do it by now, we ain't going to do it anytime soon. It's not like the incentive wasn't there. Lower Canada, ie Quebec, had more chances to change this British rule system than anyone else. They didn't.
What do you think of this excerpt of a speech by Preston Manning?

"Under current legislation the Senate has the power to be effective in representing regional interests and sober second thought. However, because the Senate is not elected and represents the worst of partisan, political patronage, it lacks all legitimacy. It is unaccountable to Canadian taxpayers."

Ironduke
28 May 04,, 00:34
I agree, the only Americans are those in the US. Canadians are NA, as are Mexicans
Well, I think Mexicans are more properly defined as "Latin Americans".

Trooth
28 May 04,, 01:52
But in the article, the PM didn't use the word unamerican. It was only used about him to say he called himself it, which in that article at least, he didn't.

ChrisF202
28 May 04,, 02:03
Well, I think Mexicans are more properly defined as "Latin Americans".
how about the term Hispanics, lets refer to any nation south of the border as hispanic and the island nations as carribean

Officer of Engineers
28 May 04,, 04:19
What do you think of this excerpt of a speech by Preston Manning?

"Under current legislation the Senate has the power to be effective in representing regional interests and sober second thought. However, because the Senate is not elected and represents the worst of partisan, political patronage, it lacks all legitimacy. It is unaccountable to Canadian taxpayers."

Spoken by a person who will never have the power to enact its change. The composition of the Senate would require a Constitutional Change, requiring at least the concent of Ontario, at least two of the Maritime provinces representing the majority of their populations, Quebec, and Alberta. That is the law. And considering the hell that Trudeau went through just to bring the British North America Act home from the UK, Preston Manning wasn't the man to change the Senate.

And seriously, it ain't a fight the House of Commons wants since the ruling party can always slam any act through the Senate.

Ironduke
28 May 04,, 05:20
Heh, is he Canada's Ross Perot?

What I really wanted to know is what you, personally think of the Senate.

Regardless of whether it will happen or not, would you prefer a triple-E senate? At least an elected senate?

themuffinman
28 May 04,, 12:23
how about the term Hispanics, lets refer to any nation south of the border as hispanic and the island nations as carribean
There is no such thing as a country called Hispania. I hate when they call me hispanic

Officer of Engineers
28 May 04,, 16:34
Heh, is he Canada's Ross Perot?

What I really wanted to know is what you, personally think of the Senate.

Regardless of whether it will happen or not, would you prefer a triple-E senate? At least an elected senate?

It's one of those things I don't worry about since I cannot do anything about it. The best course of action is to abolish the Senate since it's a merely rubber stamping committee anyway. Canada has function quite effectively without its input for over a century.