[grainfedprairieboy]

Bootlegga Bootlegga:

The military in both our countries is definitely not apolitical. The CF talks about a 'decade of darkness',

Generals commenting on the funding or ready state of the Department of National Defence or everyday soldiers expressing their concern over adverse political decisions is a far cry from an organised collective manipulating information in order to influence geopolitical events.

The C(A)F is the most professional military on this planet and would never ever try to coerce politicians into following it's own foreign agenda. Politicians set the tempo, give the direction and we respond.

Think of the army as a truck. The politician drives it and completely controls its movement and direction even though he has little understanding about how and why the vehicle works. But he uses it for a variety of tasks from recreational off roading to deliveries to even assisting a friend move. But when one of the 'check engine' lights comes on the machine has hardly turned against you.

BTW, I am personally opposed to senior officers expressing issues regarding funding or policy and believe they should press their case behind closed doors as they already have the ear of the politicians. Jr. Officers and NCO should be fully permitted to display their disgust.

Bootlegga Bootlegga:

when in reality, the decade before the Libs took over was as bad or worse for them.

Those at the top didn't believe so. In fact, those in the middle and bottom didn't feel that way either.

Tell me more about this "reality" of the Army being worse off under the former federal PC party then the succeeding Liberal government.

Bootlegga Bootlegga:

The PCs broke so many defence promises it makes me sick.

So many should be easy to list. In fact, why not add the Liberal atrocities that are by your comparison benign so we can fully appreciate how the PC failure to the C(A)F
makes you "sick" and the Liberal support doesn't.

Should be an interesting read.

Bootlegga Bootlegga:

Down south, it's more of the same, where the military/intelligence appratus doctors reports to fit the government's wish list. They create 'reports' talking about uranium sales to Niger that never happened and other that 'proof' that Iraq has WMDs.

I have been attached posted to the American army in Bosnia and Kosovo. I have spent approximately one year spanned over three occasions specialty training with Americans on two separate bases. I subscribe to American military peer reviewed journals and take an active interest in its affairs. Having said that, I would gauge my comprehension of US forces to be about 60%. Never in my experience working in various HQs or by association with a larger number of these soldiers across the entire spectrum of rank structure have I ever encountered the underlying sentiments you are confidently advocating.

I welcome the opportunity to 'close with' on the last 40% if you have anything credible other then a desire for it to be true.

[Reverend Blair]

$1:

I don't dismiss that at all. However, in Canada the opposite has been true with the liberal establishment feverently working to establish a connection between Conservatism harbouring secretive and foreboding hidden agendas or suggesting that any value not consistent with Liberal Party doctrine is anathematic to the values of Canada and thus anti-Canadian.

Well, Harper has appointed religious conservatives to the board overseeing reproductive science and stem cell research, has been stacking judicial committees with rank amateurs who don't belong there, has moved to censor movies much to the delight of Chuck McVety, has gotten rid of the science advisors office, has cutting funding to scientists and so on.

The agenda isn't so hidden.

$1:

Are you skipping the part whereby I officially stated I originally opposed intervention in Iraq? This is a consistent value and I reject potential involvement in Sudan on the same principle as an example.

Nope. This isn't all about you though. It's about the conservative movement in general, mostly in Canada and the US. If you want to defend them all, go ahead.

$1:

That's fine. I can accept that possibility. But to suggest that there is an undercurrent of politically motivated officers within the military presenting false information to politicians in order to influence their decisions is false.

There were at least some politically motivated officers and at least one who made statements that had definite religious overtones as well. There were those who tried to say something, but were silenced.

The reality is that the conservative political machine in the States decided it was going to war in Iraq and worked overtime to build a case for it.

$1:

I worked very hard for two months in preparation for a deployment to Iraq. Afghanistan came as a complete surprise to everyone and was regarded as nothing more then a token gesture of solidarity with America in its hour of need.

Further, one can only assume that Chretien acted on the information presented by his best intelligence sources, (sources and agencies that Harper would not have been privy to) and acted as responsibly as we can hope a Canadian PM would have when presented with all the evidence.

It looks an awful lot like Chretien decided not to go to Iraq because there was no valid evidence, but agreed to go to Afghanistan because of threats made about trade.

$1:

There are traditionally four allies that form the nucleus of the modern military coalition in the quest for global stability in general and western security in particular:

Australia, Canada, UK and USA.

Only one failed to stand up and be counted.

Only if you go all the way back to WWII.

Germany and France...hell, most of western Europe...are considered to be US allies. They said there was no evidence.

Australia got a pretty sweet trade deal before it decided to go.

As I said, it looks like Chretien went to Afghanistan because of threats to trade.

$1:

The deployment to the gulf predates my CKA membership but I am sure that once forces had been committed or mobilised I would have changed my perspective and supported the coalition attempts to achieve their objective.

That core belief for me has remained fundamentally unchanged and will continue to do so until such time as the enemy has been defeated and the objectives of the mission accomplished. I am more then confident in the coalitions ability to achieve their goal both militarily and under the auspices of three block war but I do not have the confidence that we can defeat those enemies from within.

Again, this isn't just about you.

That you would change your view just because of a deployment smells of, "My country right or wrong," though.

$1:

What exactly was right? Both sides knew there would be a potential for internal strife. It is a war and bloodshed is to be expected. Are you talking about the WMD? I myself, along with others have conceded that intelligence sources erred in their assessment. As for the potential for internal strife following the occupation, coalition forces were the ones most vocal in their concerns however, they erred in their assessment that they would be able to contain the problem.

Only the most deep rooted Liberal arrogance would demand an apology or lay sole ownership of well debated concerns that were articulated from both sides and originally were never held ownership by any particular faction.

Oh come on! Rummy was saying that the war would be over in six weeks and there'd be dancing in the streets. Conservative pundits and their internet boosters were echoing that.

The intelligence sources didn't err. The intelligence was pretty clear. The aluminum tubes were unsuitable. There was no Nigerian yellowcake. The inspectors couldn't find anything viable. There were no cartoon trucks hauling around cartoon mobile labs.

The Bush regime was told all of this time and time again and they just went ahead and lied.

$1:

Never was it expressed by any coalition government entity that there would not be a risk of insurgent activity. I challenge you to find a single news article quoting official government sources from any coalition government proclaiming this going to be a cake walk.

Rumsfeld was pretty outspoken about this. So was Cheney.

$1:

Considering they are nation building in direct opposition to the violence of your insurgent forces they are doing spectacular.

Considering that there was no insurgency before the war, you've pretty much proven my point. Thanks.

$1:

The government is completely functioning despite the violence. In Canada the Liberals invoked the War Measures Act and filled the streets with soldiers to enforce it over a comparatively microscopic incidence. Can you imagine the heavy handed response if Quebec separatists were daily attacking the infrastructure of Ontario or sending suicide bombers into Kensington market? We'd make the Iraqis look like amateurs as we restored security.

The government hardly functions at all. They couldn't even successfully bring charges against Blackwater mercenaries who committed murder. They are puppets of the US. No more, no less.

By the way, I oppose what Trudeau, the military, and the RCMP did with both the War Measures Act and their handling of the FLQ thing in general.

$1:

Electrical production already exceeds anything the Saddam regime ever achieved. Communications are operating at about 25% while sewer and water are running about the same. Within the next several years this is expected to be completely rebuilt. Considering the extent of the damage to the Iraqi infrastructure caused by years of neglect and the targeting during the war, by comparison with the pace of repairing damage caused by the ice storm they are moving at a pace 10x as fast.

The neglect was a direct result of the first invasion of Iraq. Another conservative...Bush the Elder...lied about babies being ripped out of their incubators to get that one rolling.

Much of the work that has been done in Iraq, mostly by US contractors with connections to the Bush White House, is substandard.

$1:

Anywhere from 50,000 - 1 million depending on your source. But the UN itself attributes the cause to be "Sectarian strife and terrorism are to blame for the violence".

Regardless, these numbers are part of a reasonable amount of collateral damage when compared with the body count that existed prewar.

Do you consider the use of daisy cutters, napalm, phosphorous, and depleted uranium to be reasonable then?

You like to make comparisons to Canada. How would you like it if somebody dropped that crap on your family?

$1:

The US military repeatedly warned the American public not to expect the quick victory with few casualties they had become accustomed to. Even US military planners were surprised with the ease in which they were able to defeat such a supposedly entrenched and defensively prepared military.

The US political leadership repeatedly hinted at a quick, painless war similar to Panama or Grenada.

$1:

I have already highlighted the UN position. If this is not the "international law" you are referring to stop beating around the bush and expose it for scrutiny.

There is the UN. There are also the Geneva Conventions. Again, the US helped to write those laws and was a voluntary signatory to them.

$1:

That's a load of bunk. Iraq was a genuine threat to it's neighbouring Islamic states and had pontificated openly its future role in the annihilation of Israel going so far as to launch missiles against the state and channel funds to organisations which committed acts of terrorism against Israel and other countries. Further, Iraq had long range plans to acquire WMD and this was a concern enough that normally liberal Europe and the UN were actively engaged in trying to prevent their acquisition and were concerned enough to issue resolutions calling for Iraq's acquiescence to international scruitiny.

Iraq was fully contained. The country was broke, the military was in shambles. Saddam might have made a few threats, but they were empty threats. The US yelled and screamed and said they had intelligence (which turned out to be false) that Saddam had WMDs. He did aquiese to demands for international scrutiny too. The US used the opportunity to spy and got caught at it. Still, the UN kept looking and found nothing. They reported those findings. The US ignored them.

$1:

China helped to write the laws on human rights abuses but you're still buying happy meal toys from them.

Not if I can help it.

The excuse that somebody else did it so it's okay for you to it too is stupid though. Most of us learn that by the time we go to kindergarten.

[grainfedprairieboy]

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

Well, Harper has appointed religious conservatives to the board overseeing reproductive science and stem cell research, has been stacking judicial committees with rank amateurs who don't belong there, has moved to censor movies much to the delight of Chuck McVety, has gotten rid of the science advisors office, has cutting funding to scientists and so on.

The agenda isn't so hidden.

Are you kidding me? Liberals have been the greatest abusers of patronage appointments though in fairness they held office for about 3/4 of the last century and had far more time to stack the deck.

Where the Conservatives have failed is by acting like Liberals and not outlawing this sort of appointment system and actually using it.

Further, there is a huge difference between patronage appointments by a government and a concerted national collaborated effort between, a political party, trade unions, media etc.

For example. The Asper family (Global, Southam) sits on the board of directors for the Federal Liberal Executive and has gone so far as to issue public decrees that the Liberal Party will not be scrutinised and fire editors of papers who dared challenge their directive. Though I support the ability for owners to determine the political bias of their private news medium, I am uncomfortable with how close aligned the Liberal party is to these organisations.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

There were at least some politically motivated officers and at least one who made statements that had definite religious overtones as well. There were those who tried to say something, but were silenced.

Speculation. It's hard to take your accusation seriously with out evidence when I know how hostile you are to the Christian faith in particular and religion in general.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

The reality is that the conservative political machine in the States decided it was going to war in Iraq and worked overtime to build a case for it.

I am not disputing that there were elements interested in a war just as there are advocates today for dealing with Iran or North Korea. I am challenging your earlier assertion that the military machine is in on any scam.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

It looks an awful lot like Chretien decided not to go to Iraq because there was no valid evidence, but agreed to go to Afghanistan because of threats made about trade.

Well if that was his motive then he was an even worse leader then I thought. Risking Canadian lives in any conflict simply for economic gain and to ensure his party wasn't adversely effected by an economic impact is deplorable.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

That you would change your view just because of a deployment smells of, "My country right or wrong," though.

That is the lot of a soldier.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

Rumsfeld was pretty outspoken about this. So was Cheney.

Actually, I had hurriedly typed and confused my Golf wars. For clarification Rumsfield had projected that it would take between 6 days and 6 months to defeat the Iraqis forces and was accurate in his assessment. What the Bush administration failed to take into account was the level to which Iran and ethnic groups would engage in insurgent activities.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

Considering that there was no insurgency before the war, you've pretty much proven my point. Thanks.

There was no insurgency because of the brutality of the Saddam regime. If coalition forces had forbade journalists from being on the ground then they could've dealt with the issue in a proper manner.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

The government hardly functions at all. They couldn't even successfully bring charges against Blackwater mercenaries who committed murder. They are puppets of the US. No more, no less.

Again. The Iraqi government actually functions quite well when all factors are considered.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

The neglect was a direct result of the first invasion of Iraq. Another conservative...Bush the Elder...lied about babies being ripped out of their incubators to get that one rolling.

Bush reiterated the tale of an eye witness account of a young nurse that had already gone public with the story. That he used that story to help rally the American people to his cause in unquestionable. That his people did not do their due diligence in checking the validity of the story is also a fact. But that he knowingly lied is incorrect.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

Much of the work that has been done in Iraq, mostly by US contractors with connections to the Bush White House, is substandard.

There have certainly been some issues but it is equally clear that having your contractors, inspectors and site managers routinely executed has not helped the situation.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

Do you consider the use of daisy cutters, napalm, phosphorous, and depleted uranium to be reasonable then?

If the OPFOR matrix calls for it then yes.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

You like to make comparisons to Canada. How would you like it if somebody dropped that crap on your family?

I doubt very much I would place my family in an environment where that were a possibility.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

The US political leadership repeatedly hinted at a quick, painless war similar to Panama or Grenada.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

There is the UN. There are also the Geneva Conventions. Again, the US helped to write those laws and was a voluntary signatory to them.

The Geneva Convention articles are an agreement on how to conduct war fare. Not whom you may or may not declare war on.

That the coalition may have violated articles pertaining to dealing with civilians or detainees and other prisoners is debatable. That the very presence of coalition forces in Iraq is a contravention is not.

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

Iraq was fully contained. The country was broke, the military was in shambles. Saddam might have made a few threats, but they were empty threats. The US yelled and screamed and said they had intelligence (which turned out to be false) that Saddam had WMDs. He did aquiese to demands for international scrutiny too. The US used the opportunity to spy and got caught at it. Still, the UN kept looking and found nothing. They reported those findings. The US ignored them.

I disagree that Iraq was contained as a long term threat. They actively were seeking to develop WMD which is a certainty. That they actually did not possess them is irrelevant to me. They did have a history of launching missile attacks against Israel and I can see no rational argument as to why they should be given another 10-20 years to actually develop the weapons.

It is this same rationale that makes me believe we should surgically strike or completely bomb into submission the weapons design and nuclear facilities of the Iranians.

[ridenrain]

Sigh. When the going gets tough, the left calls out Reverend Blair.
I'm suprised the little emperor left his little kingdom to talk with the rest of us little people.

[Scape]

Would have never even seen this thread if it wasn't for you rain.

[ridenrain]

You talking to me?

[bootlegga]

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

Generals commenting on the funding or ready state of the Department of National Defence or everyday soldiers expressing their concern over adverse political decisions is a far cry from an organised collective manipulating information in order to influence geopolitical events.

The C(A)F is the most professional military on this planet and would never ever try to coerce politicians into following it's own foreign agenda. Politicians set the tempo, give the direction and we respond.

Think of the army as a truck. The politician drives it and completely controls its movement and direction even though he has little understanding about how and why the vehicle works. But he uses it for a variety of tasks from recreational off roading to deliveries to even assisting a friend move. But when one of the 'check engine' lights comes on the machine has hardly turned against you.

BTW, I am personally opposed to senior officers expressing issues regarding funding or policy and believe they should press their case behind closed doors as they already have the ear of the politicians. Jr. Officers and NCO should be fully permitted to display their disgust.

I have a lot of faith in the CF, but when the CDS stands up and sprouts off about a 'decade of darkness', it is manipulation pure and simple, whether or not you recognize it as such. I'm in PR and I can recognize a PR move when I see one. That comment alone to the media was most definitely political. Hillier's outspokenness, while refreshing, has caused a lot of trouble for politicians.

I have no problem with the rank and file talking, but when the highest ranked officer in the CF goes out of his way to slag the Liberals, he is making a political statement, essentially saying, if they win an election, the CF will fall apart. I will be the first to say that the CF suffered hugely budget cuts in the 90s, but for him to fail to recognize the massive spending increases after 9/11 makes his statement political. If he had only added a "but we did so much better after 9/11", then his comments wouldn't have stirred up so much shit.

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

Those at the top didn't believe so. In fact, those in the middle and bottom didn't feel that way either.

Tell me more about this "reality" of the Army being worse off under the former federal PC party then the succeeding Liberal government.

Let's see how did the CF do worse under the PC party...read Mulroney's 1987 Defence White Paper and see how much of it he followed through on, despite it being part of his election platform.

Polar 8 Icebreaker...never ordered
6 more Halifax frigates...never ordered
8-12 nuclear submarines...never ordered
400 new MBTs...never ordered
New ATVs for Arctic...never ordered
Expanded reserves...cancelled
Increase CF to 90,000...Mulroney actually began the cuts that dropped us to 60,000
Chinook helos...sold to the Dutch
Pension buyouts and personnel retired...started under Mulroney
Somalia Airborne 'scandal'...occurred while Mulroney was in office. Chretien had to clean up that mess.

$1:

For those of you who lost sight of the bouncing ball, let's take a short stroll down memory lane. Instead of going back to Hillier's 10-year marker, let's take things all the way back to 1987 when Brian Mulroney's Conservative government released a long-awaited white paper on defence. At this time, the Cold War was in full swing and after years of Liberal neglect the Conservatives were going to invest heavily in restoring the military.

Included in the wish list was an increase in the regular forces to 90,000 troops, the army was to get 400 new battle tanks, the reserves were to be expanded and equipped with an entire fleet of versatile northern-terrain vehicles, the navy was to get a total of 18 new patrol frigates along with a dozen nuclear submarines (with the goal of establishing Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic), and the air force had programs in place to replace four helicopter fleets.

However, before any of this major transformation could take place, the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War ended and Canada found itself in the midst of an economic recession.

Before the ink was dry on their 1987 white paper, the Conservatives started to cancel the projected purchases. The tanks, nuclear subs and northern-terrain vehicles were cut completely. Six of the new frigates were dropped from the list and three of the helicopter purchases were rolled into one fleet. As for the manpower, it was the Conservatives who made the initial cuts from an establishment of 90,000 down to 60,000.

Soldiers considered surplus were offered large cash incentives to take early retirement and that rapid, poorly planned exodus of experienced personnel continues to plague present-day forces.

It was in 1991, under the Conservatives, that the vice chief of defence staff resigned because the course the Defence Department had plotted would result in "a decade of darkness."

The 1992 Somalia incident, involving the murder and coverup of a Somali boy by members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, occurred on the Conservative watch. It would be irresponsible to blame that whole mess and the subsequent leadership crisis that rocked the Canadian Forces through the mid-90s on the Liberals.

They inherited that scandal and while they admittedly mishandled the whole affair, many top officers were equally to blame for the resultant fallout.

Gen. Rick Hillier may have told "the truth" when he spoke of Liberal neglect, but he did not speak the whole truth. It is unfortunate that the chief of defence staff should be branded a Conservative Party promoter as a result of his comments.

However, it would be more accurate for him to say "two decades of darkness" and change the "Liberal" to "government neglect."

In terms of shortchanging our military, history shows this is a non-partisan political agenda that all parties have had a hand in.

For more info;

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/070226%20on%20target.htm

Call me crazy, but if the CF increased to 90,000 (from a then strength of 80,000 or so), the Army would have gotten some of those bodies. Same goes for expanded reserves. 400 tanks, that sounds like a plus, as well as new Arctic vehicles.

Sounds like the Army wasn't any better off under the PCs than they were under the Libs.

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

So many should be easy to list. In fact, why not add the Liberal atrocities that are by your comparison benign so we can fully appreciate how the PC failure to the C(A)F
makes you "sick" and the Liberal support doesn't.

Should be an interesting read.

See the list above. It does make me sick. If Mulroney had bothered to deal with half of that list, we'd likely have some kind of year round Arctic capability, better vehicles for the Army, and more troops instead of less. As it stands now, we have no capability to patrol all of our own waters year round.

While I may not have agreed with a lot of Chretien's decisions vis-a-vis the CF, he was elected to cut spending and get the deficit under control, not buy planes and ships. The one election promise he did keep was to cancel the EH-101s for the Navy. Seeing all the trouble we are having with the Cormorant (a SAR variant of the EH-101), we may have inadvertantly dodged a big bullet.

Chretien did buy new systems for the CF. The Coyote and LAV III which draws such raves from our allies and soldiers alike, was bought under his government, not the PCs. With our Hueys/Kiowas rusted out and the Chinooks sold, he also bought a fleet of Griffons to replace at least some of that capability. If you don't like them, take that up with Inverted, as he flies them and has defended them as an excellent piece of kit. I'm not a pilot myself, so I have to assume he knows what he's talking about.

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

I have been attached posted to the American army in Bosnia and Kosovo. I have spent approximately one year spanned over three occasions specialty training with Americans on two separate bases. I subscribe to American military peer reviewed journals and take an active interest in its affairs. Having said that, I would gauge my comprehension of US forces to be about 60%. Never in my experience working in various HQs or by association with a larger number of these soldiers across the entire spectrum of rank structure have I ever encountered the underlying sentiments you are confidently advocating.

I welcome the opportunity to 'close with' on the last 40% if you have anything credible other then a desire for it to be true.

Hey, the facts speak for themselves. False reports were created and fed to the media. Hell, even today roughly a third of Americans believe WMDs were found in Iraq. Maybe the military/intelligence appartus of the US didn't create them willingly, but they did create them nonetheless. Perhaps it was at the beck and call of Bush, but they created them and so are responsible for the 'facts' outlined in them. The military, by its very nature, tends to be more conservative, not liberal. This is borne out by their voting record. That is their right, but for you to say that their political beliefs don't in any way influence the way thy do their job is BS. When was the last time you saw/heard of a general/admiral advocating a diplomatic route instead of a military one?

[jensonj]

Yes, I hear the calls of anti-Americanism from the United States when Canadians stand up for their rights or express themselves rightfully or not. Yes, even the firing of people in Canada for exercising their democratic rights so to appease American Governments and employers. Anti Canadian attacks are on every American Broadcast Station in the U.S., Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, Jack Cafferty and people like Ann Coulter who said, “Lucky that America lets Canada live on the same continent with them.” as examples. What I don’t hear is those so called American friends of Canada denouncing American Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, Ambassadors, Broadcasters, and Announcers etc. for trashing, attacking or justifying Americans retaliating against Canadians and Canadian Businesses as anti-Canadian and detrimental to American foreign relations. Canada with its population of 9% of that of the United States of America is of no threat to American sovereignty by any means.

Longstanding, often mean-spirited U.S.-Canadian trade disputes over lumber, wheat and cattle along with water diversions, National Medicare, Pharmacare, U.S.-led attack on Iraq, Canadian Border, Northern and National Sovereignty, Canadian Diversity, Canada’s Constitution and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms have soured relations between our two nations especially during the Bush Administration as well as NAFTA that was to correct most of the pre-mentioned issues and provide a fair and level playing field but have to be renegotiated because these agreements are not one sided in America's favour.

Let's not forget ITAR rules, which have no legal authority in Canada, benign applied in Canada against Canadian citizens. Canada regards discrimination against workers based on citizenship or country of origin as a violation of the country’s charter of rights and freedoms. Most defence companies in Canada are letting people go and then fighting Canadian Laws in court but at the same time does not guarantees the employees job back if they loose.

The question of an individuals privacy and there right to privacy comes into question here as well. The right of privacy specifically, an individual’s right to a reasonable expectation of privacy is a core component of section 8 of the Charter of rights and freedoms, which guarantees the right of everyone in Canada to be secured against unreasonable search or seizure.

Let’s not forget about attacking Canada for political gain during an American election which should be pointed out that the present U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins and his predecessor U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci threaten Canadian Political Parties that there would be repercussions if they did it here in Canada during our past elections.

Also I must mention the times when U.S. Police cross Canadian borders when chasing suspects and the FBI crossing into Canada to integrate people in Canada without Canadian authorization or authority and sometimes with out Canadian knowledge. Just think about the recent Military Agreement the Harper Government just signed with the Bush Administration and then remember the assistance we sent when the levies broke a couple of years ago down south and why our people were not allowed to fully help because Canada might be sued by individual Americans.

The question is has Canada lost its sovereignty over its foreign and domestic affairs as to international trade due to its close trading relationship with the United States? That Canada can not exercise its democratic rights and move freely without fear because it has not gotten approval from and risking offending our neighbor / friend / family to the south of us. Have Canadian producers and suppliers become so tied to the high profits margins in the US that it is no longer profitable to look after Canada’s own domestic market?

The Conservative Party of Canada, and any other Canadian Political Party, by not putting Canadian interests, rights, freedoms, sovereignty and demanding and getting a level and fair trading field and receiving first their protection before signing any agreement makes this Government ANTI-CANADIAN.

[lostalex]

American neo-con pundits like coulter, limbaugh, o'reilly etc... just use Canada as an applause line. the same way Aussies vs. Kiwis, and Uk vs. France.

to take Anne Coulter's words to heart is crazy.

In the current Democratic primary, Nafta is a big issue, as many of the deciding states were heavily hit by Nafta, and many jobs were lost. none of the democratic candidates have said anything about screwing canada or eliminating NAFTA, they all talk about "re-negotiating" and from what i've heard from canadians on this site, it sounds like you guys arn't happy with many aspects of NAFTA aswell, so it sounds like a re-negotiation would be welcome from BOTH sides.

Obviously America will look out for America's interests first, as Canada will do and should do for itself.


i think the original intention of this thread was to point out the unfair characterization many Canadians make about Americans. Judging America as a country based on one administration, or one region of the country is simply a MIScharacterization. I'm sure there are many regions and communities in Canada that do not represent liberal Canadians and Canadian values as a whole.

[ShepherdsDog]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Sigh. When the going gets tough, the left calls out Reverend Blair.
I'm suprised the little emperor left his little kingdom to talk with the rest of us little people.

We'll sick Ziggy on him.

[cammi_d]

Why is it every time someone doesnt agree with an American policy or action people start jumping up and down saying that these people are anti American. Why dont people stop and listen, maybe the billion or so who make anti these comments have something relevent to say.

[lostalex]

Because there is a difference ebtween having a political position, and generalizing about Americans. i hate to tell you, but liberal Americans have been saying the same exact things just as long as you canucks, so it's irritating hearing you generalize about "Americans" because you are obvously not talking about me, or everyone i know, who have been against the war and this administration from day 1.

How would you respond to an American claiming all Canadians are heartless seal clubbers??? is that a fair characterization of you?? ofcourse not.

[cammi_d]

Since the day Bush was elected I dont think I have ever met or spoken to anyone who voted for the man. Bush is a genius, the first President of the United States who became President without anyone actually voting for him.

[lostalex]

well having yur daddy's supreme court appointee's making the decision helps... not to mention having yur brother as the governor of the deciding state, and your cousin as a producer on the news channel that called the election in yur favour...

and there are plenty of neo-cons on this site that i'm sure proudly admit to voting for him. you arn't making any sense.

[cammi_d]

OMG lostalex is George Bush