babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Canadian Patriotism: Conservative Citizenship

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canadian Patriotism: Conservative Citizenship
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 19 March 2003 10:19 AM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll be damned if I will let the shopping mall scent smellers in the Liberal Party make me ashamed to be Canadian. They should be properly ashamed and, of course, we are mortified, not ashamed, to have these cringing frontrunners as our government. Canada has its fair share of loyalists, patriots, militant democrats and fighters: The Liberals cannot bleach that out of us, no matter how much King-Trudeau mush thay pass off as governance.

Canada needs a government that will ensure a strong and large military that both defends our shores and is never caught short when a foreign conflict calls out for our participation. This is a proposition that has genuine popular support and is an issue that a quick-witted conservative party could and should use to seek a genuine mandate from the people of our country.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 19 March 2003 10:21 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, and yet another right winger defends social spending.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 19 March 2003 12:13 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...a quick-witted conservative party

Phew! Good thing for the rest of us that there ain't no such animal.

Notice how the right-wing sentiment of

quote:
Canada needs a government that will ensure a strong and large military that both defends our shores and is never caught short when a foreign conflict calls out for our participation
smacks of some childish desire to show that we can play on the sandlot just like the other big kids.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dogbert
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1201

posted 19 March 2003 01:17 PM      Profile for Dogbert     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why do we need a millitary?

To defend ourselves? We share a land border with one country, our best buddy and lifelong pal. If they're not our buddy, nothing short of nukes is gonna protect us from an invasion. So unless that's what you're calling for, defense is right out.

What remains, logically, is offence. Why should we bother? The US spends more on its millitary than everyone else combined. They can blow up small 3rd world countries just fine without us.

There is only so much money to go around in this country. If we start throwing huge sums into the millitary, we're either gonna have to lose our social programs and keep our taxes constant, or raise our taxes. Do you have any reason, beyond simple macho posturing, why we should do this?


From: Elbonia | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 19 March 2003 01:25 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
beyond simple macho posturing

Possible right-wing response: "What?? Macho posturing not good enough for ya, buddy? Maybe you and I need to step outside and dance a few rounds! That'll show you just what macho posturing really means."

Where is Chuck Strahl when you need him?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 19 March 2003 01:38 PM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Didn't realise dancing was considered macho now.
From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 19 March 2003 02:06 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suspect it is if you use your fists.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 19 March 2003 03:56 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Canada needs a government that will ensure a strong and large military that both defends our shores and is never caught short when a foreign conflict calls out for our participation. This is a proposition that has genuine popular support and is an issue that a quick-witted conservative party could and should use to seek a genuine mandate from the people of our country.

Canada needs a government that will ensure the best possible quality of life for its people, one that is also engaged internationally in the promotion of peace and human rights. That means a military whose primary role is peacekeeping and support for a genuine international military force responsible to the UN, not just "loyal" to the imperial power of the day. Not just "ready, aye, ready." This is a proposition that has genuine popular support. If the ahistorical anti-Liberal dreck of Mr Stagg had any popular support, then we would be living under an Alliance government already.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 19 March 2003 04:22 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'll be damned if I will let the shopping mall scent smellers in the Liberal Party make me ashamed to be Canadian.

Don't worry about being ashamed to be be Canadian, I am ashamed enough for both of us that your Canadian.

Go bait eleswhere.

quote:
Canada needs a government that will ensure a strong and large military that both defends our shores and is never caught short when a foreign conflict calls out for our participation.

Our military does a good job peacekeeping. It is sufficent for a country of our size and needs. We can never catch up to the US and they are the most likely to be a problem. If you feel the need to be a follower instead of a leader I'm sure the US would love to have you, go warmonger elsewhere.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 19 March 2003 04:44 PM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Overworked phrase department: Paradigm shift

The revitalizing of our Canadian military can only come when, and if, the government of the day takes the approach that military strength is an axiom of nationhood. This switch from our current fetish of defanged neutralism is not unprecedented. Take the example of Tony Blair and his populist rule as British Labour PM. He has departed in radical form from the pacifist orthodoxy of conventional British Labour politics to a position that is principled, militaristic and worthy of past eras when Britain was a formidable and assertive military power. Blair defied the Brahmins of his own party to take a stand firmly founded in history and his own pragmatic assessment of what needs to be done in winning the war against terrorism.

Canada and its politicians, present and future, can similarly move national policy past the deadwood policies of inertia masked as peacekeeping and take this country into a new phase where military strength is a healthy virtue and not a necessary pathology to be tolerated in small measures. Patrolling our borders is more than enough reason to have a core of crack troops, air force and particularly, naval forces. A militia or reserve element organized on the model of the American National Guard would be a supplement to the regular forces, fully integrated in border security and with plenty of inactive but trained personnel to call on in times of crisis.

The naval and coast guard element of this new arrangement would be especially welcome in the coastal regions where fishing rights and fishing grounds are a matter of international dispute: The Grand Banks of my home province for example. As an aside, it should not go unnoticed that our opponent in the latest fishing dispute on the Grand Banks, Spain, has aligned unequivocally with the Americans while Canada vacillates, quivers and finally slinks into its Euro-pacifistic shell on the question of the Iraq invasion.

The courage to run a political campaign on clear-eyed policies of military self-sufficiency is there for the doing by any political leader confident enough to put a common sense program to a country with a history of can-do military effort, circa 1939-1945.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 March 2003 04:53 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well he came home from the war
with a party in his head
and modified Brougham DeVille
and a pair of legs that opened up
like butterfly wings
and a mad dog that wouldn't sit still
he went and took up with a Salvation Army Band girl
who played dirty water
on a swordfishtrombone
he went to sleep at the bottom of
Tenkiller lake
and he said "gee, but it's
great to be home."

Well he came home from the war
with a party in his head
and an idea for a fireworks display
and he knew that he'd be ready with
a stainless steel machete
and a half a pint of Ballentine's
each day
and he holed up in room above a hardware store
cryin' nothing there but Hollywood tears
and he put a spell on some
poor little Crutchfield girl
and stayed like that for 27 years

Well he packed up all his
expectations he lit out for California
with a flyswatter banjo on his knee
with a lucky tiger in his angel hair
and benzedrine for getting there
they found him in a eucalyptus tree
lieutenant got him a canary bird
and shaked her head with every word
and Chesterfielded moonbeams in a song
and he got 20 years for lovin' her
from some Oklahoma governor
said everything this Doughboy
does is wrong

Now some say he's doing
the obituary mambo
and some say he's hanging on the wall
perhaps this yarn's the only thing
that holds this man together
some say he was never here at all

Some say they saw him down in
Birmingham, sleeping in a
boxcar going by
and if you think that you can tell a bigger tale
I swear to God you'd have to tell a lie...


Tom Waits, "Swordfishtrombones"


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dogbert
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1201

posted 19 March 2003 07:02 PM      Profile for Dogbert     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you're advocating that we should put our economy on a war footing as it was for the 2nd world war? Complete with government control over industry and everything? Well, now you're talking...
From: Elbonia | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 19 March 2003 07:33 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The run-down state of our military is just one symptom of the run-down, hollowed-out state of the entire Canadian public sector. Fixing one rightly involves fixing the other.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 19 March 2003 07:38 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The run-down state of our military is just one symptom of the run-down, hollowed-out state of the entire Canadian public sector. Fixing one rightly involves fixing the other

I'll agree with you as far as the state of the public sector goes, but I can think of a lot of things right here at home that should be greater priorities than pumping cash into the military just to prove our nation's manhood.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Funk Soul Brother
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3864

posted 19 March 2003 08:25 PM      Profile for Funk Soul Brother     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't want my country to warmonger, and if the citizens want the armed forced to peacekeep, so be it.

But what is wrong about having a strong, well-equipped military? A military that shovels snow occasionally, peacekeeps mostly but can defend us and reign death, destruction and hell on earth upon anyone who chooses to smite our beautiful nation?

Keep in mind, the biggest threat to Canada is the US.


From: Tugging on your sleeve... | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 19 March 2003 08:38 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who would choose to smite our nation and why would they do that? Geopolitics is not random or pointless. Things happen for a reason. I also support rebuilding the military (along very specific lines), but this talk of raining death on people across the globe is sheer folly. It will prompt the kind of whirlwind that the US has sown, not prevent it.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 19 March 2003 08:42 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To defend ourselves? We share a land border with one country, our best buddy and lifelong pal. If they're not our buddy, nothing short of nukes is gonna protect us from an invasion. So unless that's what you're calling for, defense is right out.

They will not remain friends with us if we keep on mooching. It is possible to go with no military at all and just hand over our sovereignty to the US. However, they would probably want us to pay them for it...

quote:
Our military does a good job peacekeeping. It is sufficent for a country of our size and needs.

Hahahahahaha

If these goals are to be acheived, we must kick out the Liberals in favor of the CA. Hopefully, the next election will go favourably.

Just remember: all the social programs in the world will not save you from a military power trying to invade you (be they foreign powers, or the one right next to us). Although the Americans will never be foolish enough to invade Canada.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Funk Soul Brother
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3864

posted 19 March 2003 08:56 PM      Profile for Funk Soul Brother     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who would choose to smite our nation and why would they do that?

That's irrevelant. Someone may one day smite us, or may be not. I like being prepared. And 'why' is none of my concern. That would be 'blaming the victim'.

quote:
Geopolitics is not random or pointless. Things happen for a reason.

Again, irrevelant and blaming the victim. The people who died when the towers collapsed certainly didn't deserve that response for whatever 'reason'.

quote:
I also support rebuilding the military (along very specific lines), but this talk of raining death on people across the globe is sheer folly. It will prompt the kind of whirlwind that the US has sown, not prevent it.

I'm talking about defending Canada, not 'raining death on people across the globe'. Think Switzerland rather than the US.

The military doesn't need to be rebuilt. It's actually very, very good all things considered. It just needs more money.


From: Tugging on your sleeve... | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 19 March 2003 09:19 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I certainly disagree with Barry Stagg on this. I am absolutely thrilled that Jean Chretien is keeping Canada out of the American lunacy in Iraq.

Yes our military needs more money. However, when they get it, they do stupid things like buy submarines. What does Canada need with submarines (new, used or whatever)? We do need some new helicoptors, for coastal rescue.

The most dangerous military in the world is right next door and we could never defend ourselves. So don't try.

BTW. Anybody who has gone into the woods for Dominion Day knows how powerful an enemy mosquitos or blackflies can be. Or no-seeums. Spending on high tech military equipment is not necessarily wise.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 March 2003 10:13 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am not sure what the poster who began this thinks is gained by calling someone

quote:
the shopping mall scent smellers in the Liberal Party
, but to me it seems like meaningless invective.

For those interested in serious thought about international issues, categories such as this are self-defeating. Use of an image such as this makes me think the poster feels a need to search madly for a "masculine" metaphor for his side, while reserving a "feminine" image for the other side. (In fact, I recall this poster doing just that on another occasion, calling opponents of the war "sedentary".)

This is basically a fascist trope. When Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, and Hitler Czechoslovakia, they used similar terms to smear their opponents. (A good source for this is George L. Mosse's book, Nazi Culture.)


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 March 2003 10:18 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please do not feed the troll.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 20 March 2003 04:39 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I won't feed the troll(s), I promise. I'm just posting to say...

quote:
Where is Chuck Strahl when you need him?

Darrell Stinson is the Alliance MP who TWICE challenged fellow MPs to a fistfight. Chuck Strahl wouldn't do that: he wouldn't want to mess up his hair.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 20 March 2003 04:58 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't forget, using obviously fascist language like:
quote:
the shopping mall scent smellers in the Liberal Party

leaves a person open to similar rhetoric by idiots like myself that wonder if shit-smelling Alliance farmers can really run a modern government.

Since we are all so worried about Canadian military contributions, we should take into consideration the lead manure-spreader himself that says:

quote:
"We have seen nations in the past support a military action without sending
forces, but this is the first time we have ever seen a country not support a
military action and send forces anyway. What a bizarre position."

Politics is right. But this is a a level of politics that the farmers will never understand.

Ah, the perfume smelt in a mall is so much better than pig and cow shit the farmers deal with, given Canada's increasing urban population.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 20 March 2003 05:20 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's irrevelant. Someone may one day smite us, or may be not. I like being prepared. And 'why' is none of my concern. That would be 'blaming the victim'.

Not so irrelevant. My point is that the lines of cause and effect that led to a terrorist attack on the US are very clearly drawn and many people predicted it. Although Canada has involved itself in awful business in the past, it is very far down the list of potential targets. What terrorist organisation would consider Canada the prime target of their vengence? The very idea is preposterous. You have no hope of confronting terrorism or realistically assessing the risks if the "why" is not your concern.

And I'm not blaming the victim. I'm blaming past and present US government elites, who were NOT the victims of the WTC attacks.

quote:
I'm talking about defending Canada, not 'raining death on people across the globe'. Think Switzerland rather than the US.

I totally agree. I also think Canada's military should be developed along the Swiss model. My "raining death" comment was a direct quote from you in a previous post. I don't think we need the capacity to wreak vengence on imagined enemies. In terms of terrorism, it is a poor tactic. Ensuring that our governments do nothing to incur the hatred of various peoples is far more important as a preventative measure.

We do still live in a world of armies and wars, and so we should not assume that we will always be untouchable by the good graces of the US. We should create a military structure that can actually defend Canada in the event of an imperialist invasion, but not one geared towards offense. A strong military serves many other beneficial purposes anyway, such as rescue and emergency response.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Funk Soul Brother
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3864

posted 20 March 2003 08:47 AM      Profile for Funk Soul Brother     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The very idea is preposterous. You have no hope of confronting terrorism or realistically assessing the risks if the "why" is not your concern.

I could care less "why" someone chooses to commit a terrorist act. Once committed, it really is irrevelant. It becomes a time of kicking ass and taking names.

Preposterous? A while ago I remember hearing of bomb plots in Jewish parts of Montreal and Toronto.

quote:
Ensuring that our governments do nothing to incur the hatred of various peoples is far more important as a preventative measure.

Terrorists are unreasonable people. I happen to like letting women drive and vote. Appeasement sucks.

quote:
We should create a military structure that can actually defend Canada in the event of an imperialist invasion, but not one geared towards offense.

The best defense is a good offense. Defeating an enemy with overwhelming force is good thing.


From: Tugging on your sleeve... | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 20 March 2003 09:54 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The best defense is a good offense.
Hey, great idea! The attacks of 9/11 followed this advice. Should North Korea follow it as well?

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Funk Soul Brother
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3864

posted 20 March 2003 10:29 AM      Profile for Funk Soul Brother     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hey, great idea! The attacks of 9/11 followed this advice. Should North Korea follow it as well?

Your sarcasm would be more effective if you actually made sense.

Are you saying the terrorists committed the highjackings and murder as a means of defense? Or that NK should launch an offensive on the US or SK as a means of defense.

Let me further explain my position:

Canada should have a military that has the very best equipment, and the very best people. Some of this equipment may be weapons, some of these people may have to kill other people. Of course, these weapons and people will only be used to defend ourselves, which will be done in an offensive manner.


From: Tugging on your sleeve... | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 20 March 2003 12:32 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My only point was that pre-emptive attacks cut both ways and endanger everyone.

[ 20 March 2003: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 20 March 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's irrevelant. Someone may one day smite us, or may be not. I like being prepared. And 'why' is none of my concern. That would be 'blaming the victim'.

Understanding the motivation of the agressor does not necessarily imply that what the victim receives is someone justified.

Being prepared for anything breeds paranoia and opens the door for the state to erode civil liberties.

quote:
Darrell Stinson is the Alliance MP who TWICE challenged fellow MPs to a fistfight. Chuck Strahl wouldn't do that: he wouldn't want to mess up his hair.

Okay, so I lost this round of "Name that Alliance Thug." I think I should get a prize for not knowing how to tell them apart.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 20 March 2003 12:45 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Just remember: all the social programs in the world will not save you from a military power trying to invade you.

Yeah, 'cause there's a grave danger of THAT happening.

A strong set of social programs ensures that more people in your nation enjoy a basic standard of living. Canada could establish itself as a model nation, one founded on the true principles of equality, respect and liberty for all. Nations that are founded on militaristic self-interest and the quest for supremacy, by their very nature, make enemies


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 20 March 2003 01:17 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's laughable all these gutless right-wing whiners and whingers worried about trade and how we've been "mooching" off the US.

First, there's no way the US is going to suspend trade with its largest supplier of petroleum products and the country it depends on for much of its electricity, most of its agricultural products and >95% of its natural gas.

No matter what tough talk comes out of Washington, the US, with its huge balance of payments deficit can't possibly cut of trade with us, as we are their largest market.

Especially since the UN is considering trade sanctions against the US and there are already $5 billion in WTO-approved sanctions from EU looming.

The US deficit is huge thanks to responsible neocon economic policy and will worsen.

As for someone attacking us, you have to be an idiot to consider this a remotely plausible possibility. We belong to the most impressive military power in human history, people, wake up!

Re-read the above to see how much they depend on us (one doesn't depend on "moochers" o ye of slow intellect).

If anyone tries to mess with America's (albeit uppity) Northern colony, you wanna see "shock and awe"?

There is only one country we need to fear, and they've got us, folks. They've owned over 75% of us SINCE THE 1960'S.

Get with the program and spare me the Canadian Morons' (Stockwell Harper-Stephen Day) craven alarmism!

[ 20 March 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Meow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1247

posted 24 March 2003 06:47 PM      Profile for Meow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
testify!
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adam Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3034

posted 25 March 2003 04:37 AM      Profile for Adam Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Inavading Canada is to some degree like invading Russia, it's really a stupid move, only the Americans could occupy it and unless we wanted them here public resistince would make it hard to maintain this occupation.

[ 25 March 2003: Message edited by: Adam Smith ]


From: Manitoba | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
4canada
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5152

posted 13 March 2004 01:31 AM      Profile for 4canada        Edit/Delete Post
Look, forget Russia and forget everyone else. Let them do their own business. Lets concentrate on our own.

Seems everyone has an opionion about enemies to Canada and our government. Some debate over terrorism and some debate over liberals vs whomever. The truth is we have only one enemy, and that enemy invades our country at a slow and painful pace. The united states infects Canada.

Canadian industries suffer the pressure from americans. They invade our fishing waters, forcing coastal dwellers into poverty. They enforce duties on our own timbers, forcing Canadian wholly owned companies to retreat into bankruptcy. They block cattle trades from the prairies that devastate those provinces that once flourished on agriculture. They aquire companies that harvest our rich fresh-water resources and ship products across their entire bloated nation at no profit to Canadians. At first sign of trouble, they turn to their friendly neighbour for support, and for some sick reason they get it. Enough is enough!!

We have the ability to sustain ourselves without the help of The Arrogant South. Ask yourself this; What does the US truley offer to Canadians that we could not find elsewhere? Hard one isn't it? Some might advocate american protection. What protection do we need? We don't start wars that cost thousands, maybe millions of lives! We peacekeep -- a truley noble and worthy cause. We have no ambition to keep a bloated and dull empire as the americans do. We are Canadians!! -- and you may boast that!

Another tasty tidbit might stimulate your patriotism. My friend recently arrived home from Thailand; part of his exploration and search for knowledge of the world. Much to his disgust, he found loud, arrogant, rude americans openly claiming to be Canadians because they could not travel abroad unharrassed otherwise. I puked at this news. I used to be able to freely sew my flag on my backpack and explore our world, but with sick stories like that I hesitate.

I am not american. I am Canadian, and I want to stay that way. I don't want my sovereignty to be stolen by some authoritarian. I don't want my gorgeous lands rapped by a bloated corporate america looking to sustain its overpopulation. I want my rights, and I'm willing to fight for them. Our country is great and you, reader, should be so lucky to be in it. Stand up for yourself! Display the leaf proudly. You are Canadian!


From: Alberta | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Klingon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4625

posted 13 March 2004 02:18 AM      Profile for Klingon        Edit/Delete Post
Now this is truly a get-to-it topic!

SO the CA types say we need a large powerful military to supposedly defend Canada and mobilize when we are "called to war."

THis so typical of rock-headed thinking of the "right wing."

First, how would one come up with the cash to pay for a huge military expansion? The CA would love to hack back, sell-off and shut down whatever federal social programs we have left, leadingto all kinds of poverty, insecurity and economic stagnation--all so we could have a large military.

Joseph Stalin did just this in Russia in the 1930s. Those weren't fun days.

Second, who would most like attack Canada in a military way? The answer is obvious: the US. It's government has an established track record of bombing, sanctioning, marginalizing friend and foe alike when there's a dispute.

THe CA seems wholly beholden to follow the dictates of the US government at any cost, including into that farce of a scandal in Iraq.

SO, would it be ready to train and deploy this large Canadian military to defend us from our greatest threat--the US? Or would it more likely act as an appenda to the US military, doing whatever the US government says, at the expense of Canadian taxpayers?

If this is the case, then forget about defending Canada. We just gave the country away.


From: Kronos, but in BC Observing Political Tretchery | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 13 March 2004 02:38 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Edited because I didn't pay attention to the date.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Jingles ]


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5073

posted 13 March 2004 08:05 AM      Profile for Brutus        Edit/Delete Post
In poll after poll after poll the number one priority for Canadians is our Healthcare system.

Of course the Alliance party makes it a habit to ignore what Canadians want so if we elect them you can bet the farm the military will be number one priority. And don't kid yourself the Conservatives ARE THE ALLIANCE!

If you want to be buddys with G.W.Bush you've got to be prepared to go to all out war even if it means going to war under lies.

Yes our military needs beefing up but not to the extent that a lot of people think. Some people think we need a fully mobile force! Why? To attack other countries because some nut case in Washington thinks they might have weapons of mass distruction?

Just wonderful!


From: Montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 13 March 2004 10:34 AM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

If you want to be buddys with G.W.Bush you've got to be prepared to go to all out war even if it means going to war under lies.
[/QB]

And how is this different from supporting the Martin Liberals?


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 13 March 2004 11:36 AM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In response to Barry Stagg:
I wish I could share your sense of faith in the conservatives however they have done no better than the Liberals since at least Mulroney and Reagan. The Liberals practice extreme impotence whist the Conservatives reduce humanity to a dollar figure or less.

Bush has stated that we can choose certainty with him, meaning doing what has been done before and expecting the same results, or we can choose uncertainty.

To choose uncertainty means to me that we must take risks in testing our abilities as humans to use our freewill and ability to think and reason to progress in a manor that increases our global survival.

The bomb has changed warfare forever. We can’t go back and pretend we are pre 1945. Any industrialized country can have power over any other non industrialized country by pressing a button. Including Canada. We can manufacture any nuclear device, smart bomb and icbm in a matter of days.

The days of industrial violent force are at an end. The former world powers with largest militaries, for the most part, have seen their colonies shrink and decline into a worse chaos than existed before their arrival. They recieved the worse elements of our industrial revolution.

Whatever we do next will be hard and feel strange much the same as an alcoholic feels when they sober up. They don’t know what to do but they do know that they are on the right track.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Pimji ]


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
canadianpatriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4556

posted 13 March 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for canadianpatriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh I thought this post was about me..... just kidding. I advocate a Higher Military Spending.
I would like to see 3- 5 % of the GDP go to Military spending. It is long overdue.

From: National Capital | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
canadianpatriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4556

posted 13 March 2004 01:27 PM      Profile for canadianpatriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by canadianpatriot:
Oh I thought this post was about me..... just kidding. I advocate a Higher Military Spending.
I would like to see 3- 5 % of the GDP go to Military spending. It is long overdue.

but also have a Independent Foriegn Policy from the Americans


From: National Capital | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 13 March 2004 01:34 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I feel the same way.

The resource crunch will crush our country's sovereignty if we are not prepared to negotiate with the Americans from a position of strength.

I hate feeling the way I do, as it borders on blind nationalism, but we're stuck in the Jean Valjean dilemma here: "If I speak, I am condemned, If I stay silent, I am damned."

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: NDP Newbie ]


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steve N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2934

posted 13 March 2004 01:51 PM      Profile for Steve N     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In most ways I'd be perfectly happy if Canada had no military, but one thing I wonder about is the U.S. reaction.

The U.S. is paranoid about being attacked, and if Canada had no military to patrol its own regions, I expect the U.S. would "demand" to do it itself. This might be overt, or it might come as backroom lobbying from U.S. run corporations. Would we end up seeing U.S. military bases in Canada? If we said no, would there be other pressures?

It might be best to have a small but well-funded military that specialised in reconnaissance, search and rescue, disaster relief and peacekeeping. Emphasis on aircraft for patrol and transport, medical teams, dam and bridge builders, etc., rather than tanks, missles and cannon. This type of military wouldn't be against my political beliefs, and would be enough to satisfy treaty obligations and international operations. We don't have to be fighters to contribute to just causes in other ways.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
4canada
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5152

posted 13 March 2004 06:40 PM      Profile for 4canada        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Steve N:
In most ways I'd be perfectly happy if Canada had no military, but one thing I wonder about is the U.S. reaction.

The U.S. is paranoid about being attacked, and if Canada had no military to patrol its own regions, I expect the U.S. would "demand" to do it itself. This might be overt, or it might come as backroom lobbying from U.S. run corporations. Would we end up seeing U.S. military bases in Canada? If we said no, would there be other pressures?



The US already does it. For decades our governments have been "co-operating" in a system of defense called NORAD. "Co-operating" is a loose term at best! All chief commanders of NORAD mysteriously happen to be american generals --coincidence? I think not! Another case of the americans sticking their noses into someone else's business.

Canadian global reputation was impeccable for so long, but with southern authoritarians dictating global events, countries are holding the US and its allies responsible for suffering inflicted everywhere. Do you think we should be tied to atrocities committed by the US? People all over the world are beginning to think that Canada is the US's best buddy, and if that’s truly the case (as it should not be!), we're the weakest link in Bushes chain-gang. In that case, the military debate will be over because we'll need a military comparable to the US to protect ourselves. Why would other nations attack us if we're friends with US you ask? Simple; we are the #1 US trading partner, accounting for the majority of their resources. Enemies will attack US where it hurts the most -- their resources.

Yes, "The U.S. is paranoid about being attacked..." and rightfully so! They've stuck their nose into everyone’s business; disrupting various countries' political and social systems all in the name of commerce. It amazes me that an event like 9/11 did not occur sooner!

The US can "demand" to do whatever it wants! Let them rant and rave. Canadians don't have to listen to, or bow to Bush and his sanctimonious crap as he tends his flock of sheep.


From: Alberta | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 13 March 2004 07:01 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Steve N:
In most ways I'd be perfectly happy if Canada had no military, but one thing I wonder about is the U.S. reaction.

The U.S. is paranoid about being attacked, and if Canada . . .


How would the US react if Canada had a large, well funded military, with state-of-the-art equipment arrayed along the 49th? How did they react when Canada built the Arrow? Ever wonder what Eisenhower told Diefenbaker when they went "fishing"?


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
canadianpatriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4556

posted 13 March 2004 07:38 PM      Profile for canadianpatriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:

How would the US react if Canada had a large, well funded military, with state-of-the-art equipment arrayed along the 49th? How did they react when Canada built the Arrow? Ever wonder what Eisenhower told Diefenbaker when they went "fishing"?


That would be alright by me, Diefenbaker made a HUGE Mistake to cancel the arrow (My Opinion)
Eisenhower was a General for Christ Sake. He didn't want any country especially Canada to out do them Militarly, rememer it was the height of the cold war.


From: National Capital | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 13 March 2004 08:43 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by canadianpatriot:

That would be alright by me, Diefenbaker made a HUGE Mistake to cancel the arrow (My Opinion)
Eisenhower was a General for Christ Sake. He didn't want any country especially Canada to out do them Militarly, rememer it was the height of the cold war.


I think Dief made a big mistake cancelling the Arrow for another reason. The Americans learned that Canada can be pushed around.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
humbleman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4522

posted 13 March 2004 08:45 PM      Profile for humbleman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no point to having a military if all its going to be is a sidekick to the US. The US can do, Canada is a strategic fortress. We have one border, the only country that can effectively threaten our soverignity is the US. And if they ever threatened us, our only hope is to be build a significant nuclear force.
From: Oakville | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 14 March 2004 09:53 AM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question appears to be, what kind of military does Canada need?

I think it would be best to decide what is meant by the word security. In most countries internal security is a euphemism for beating up their own citizens. We are under greater and constant threat of chemical and biological "attack" from our own behaviour as opposed to the great boogey man hiding around the corner. The military in its present state, is powerless against avian flu, SARS, and BSE, let alone global warming and melting ice shelves. However there is a role for them to play provided the military work with civilian organizations in a co operative manor. This would certainly mean they abandon their previous Clauswitz philosophy and the use of violent force to extend foreign policy.

Edited to add:
It was the Canadian civilian population and organizations that conquered these biological attacks. The military, thankfully, sat these ones out.

A rapid reaction team and patrol of Canada's north is imperative as it will be used as a shipping lane and flight path for people and goods. When a foreign tanker spills its oil or a 747 takes a dive who will arrive first? At this point in time it’s the Americans.

Liberals have impotence in that they have no security policy for their own state and conservatives would allow Americans to do what must be our work, essentially erasing our country by giving it to the US for a song.

[ 14 March 2004: Message edited by: Pimji ]


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 14 March 2004 10:24 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Conservatives want a strong military so they can send Canadian youth (not thier kids, mind you) off to fight for the twisted interests of pompous Eurowannabeagain Powers, and of course the paramount interests of deffending American corporate interests, like the current war being fought in Iraq for the benifit of Haliburton.

We an air force and navy strong enough to deffend our fish stocks on the Grand Banks from Eurothievery, and we need a military strong enough to interceed at the right moment in peacekeeping.

That can be accomplished without much more than the current expenditures; particularly if DND adopted accounting proceedures good enough to sniff out 160 million dollar discrepencies.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 14 March 2004 12:55 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Would we end up seeing U.S. military bases in Canada?

We already do have USMilitary bases in Canada. Go north and you will find state of the art, well defended bases with barracks and aircraft hangers. The DEW line? Regarding NORAD, Canadians have commanded the facility. We even host an alternative landing site for Space Shuttles. Building of airstips continues.
Having a well defined and capable military force gives us options - options we might not have or be able to excercise if we don't fund and support.

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca