The Liberal/NDP Thread

[gunzgirl85]

Hey guys, i thought we had to rebuttle against the conservative thread.
Im sorry to all of you who are strongly liberal or strongly NDP to lump this together :(
But i am completely confused on which party will get my ballot, since the liberals are, well, the LIBERALS, who stand for OUR Canada!
But Jack Layton and the NDP have a very good platform, so maybe they should get a chance to mix things up!

although i don't like the idea of voting someone in my riding that i don't know for Jack Layton, and i do like Claudette Bradshaw.. :confused:

lets start debating!

[Wood]

Go liberals (not the liberal party in particular) just those who favour equality and all those good values.

[Jiggy]

I find it odd that you lumped Liberals and NDP together.
NDP stands for Canada too ;)

[Lola]

Go NDP! They get my vote.

[M. Ward]

Go Me! Vote for me! Im not sure what I am..Definetly not a Conservative..And I suppose that since ill soong be in the YLC, im a Liberal.

[ctjj.stevenson]

Well, one thing is for sure, I will not vote for the devils in blue.

[gunzgirl85]

I find it odd that you lumped Liberals and NDP together.
NDP stands for Canada too ;)
yes thats why if you look at my post i did it because i support both parties and im a confused voter..lol

anywho i don't understand how ppl could possibly support the blue, i mean privatised healthcare and participating in that stupid war...grrr!! :mad: :mad:


i rather like my Canadian identity....unlike the Jr. USA over there...

[piper]

Well, one thing is for sure, I will not vote for the devils in blue.

As opposed to the blatent, arrogant liars in red?

[gunzgirl85]

As opposed to the blatent, arrogant liars in red?
heyhey this thread is for supporters only!
i don't go making comments in their thread!

[piper]

heyhey this thread is for supporters only!
i don't go making comments in their thread!

Why not? Could make for an interesting discussion.

[Whiff]

All the parties stand for Canada, but the Conservative are looking at a "New Approach" to Our Canada.

But again, that don't mean they are getting my vote, becasue I don't know who I am going to vote for.

[The Blue Tory]

Ontario's NDP leader Hampton, I'm starting to like somewhat... he's going after McGuinty for his lies...

[gunzgirl85]

why would the "lying" influence any of you?
all politians lie!! :rolleyes:
Its a fact! I rather look at what their platform is then how much they lie

i mean if i were american and clinton was running..i would vote for him!

[Ching]

Why not? Could make for an interesting discussion.
We've been asked not to post in the Conservative thread, so I think it's fair to ask Conservatives not to post in this thread.

[Neo]

We've been asked not to post in the Conservative thread, so I think it's fair to ask Conservatives not to post in this thread.

Check and then Mate.

[Jiggy]

All the parties stand for Canada, but the Conservative are looking at a "New Approach" to Our Canada.

But again, that don't mean they are getting my vote, becasue I don't know who I am going to vote for.

isnt the meaning of conservatives that they favour traditional values and are opposed to change?

I am personally a full fledged NDP supporter

[piper]

We've been asked not to post in the Conservative thread, so I think it's fair to ask Conservatives not to post in this thread.

Whats your point? Post away in that one, I don't care. Go for it. Oh, and I'll post here when I see fit. Thanks.

[Wood]

Whats your point? Post away in that one, I don't care. Go for it. Oh, and I'll post here when I see fit. Thanks.

Then what's the difference between this thread and every other thread on the board? Being able to discuss political ideas and situations rather than debate them, or have to waste time with obvious ad homenim arguments makes for enjoyment.

Not that debates aren't good, but there's plenty of room for that.

[Ching]

Whats your point? Post away in that one, I don't care. Go for it. Oh, and I'll post here when I see fit. Thanks.
My point is exactly what I said it was. I posted in the Conservative thread and was asked not to. There's no need to be rude about it.

[piper]

I wasen't being rude. I didn't ask you to stop. I like to argue, debate, converse, discuss, whatever. Go for it. This could be fun.

[sic_transit_gloria]

What about the people who aren't even fully sure which party they want to win?? I mean, there are good and bad sides to each party, and to really know and understand the one that you want to win, you'd look at the negative sides too.. how can you fully form an opinion of something with only one side of the issue?? Wouldn't you call that a bit conservative and narrowminded??

[Wood]

Not really narrow minded, like I said if you want the negatives about the liberal party just look at any of the threads from the last couple of months. There are different forums for everything, and sometimes its nice to discuss things with like minded people. Normally what happens when politics are discuss is just the same old issues being used to attack the othersides opinions.

ANyways

I thought tonights debate was fairly interesting.

The biggest issue with Harper was the notwithstanding clause, he tried to dance around it and get off topic but he refused to say that he would respect the rights of Canadians within reason. Which is fairly understandable since he fully well expects to have to use it. Its like a blow in slow motion, if he forms the next government he will bring about the vote in parliment and a conservative government will pass whatever legislation he brings forth. The legislation blatantly infringes on the sec 15 equality rights of homosexuals under the Charter. It will be up for judicial review and it will not pass. It won't pass the proportionality test (how can protecting the santinty of marriage be a pressing of objective of a federal government, when the santity of marriage falls under provincial juristiction?). It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens next. The precident of a federal government envoking sec 33 would destroy what it means to be Canadian.

Harper also seemed to know that Canadians in general are liberal minded, and do not agree with his social policies. He's not proud of them: outlaw gay marriages, publicise Health Care, no national childcare program ect. And his plans for the military don't fit well with Canadians, the weaponization of space will be a stomach turning day for humanity, who wants Canada's name associated with that? It seemed as if Harper, just wanted to make it seem as if he was just a more responsible liberal government and there was no ideological difference. I guess he realized that people don't agree with his ideology.


Secondly, I was disappointed to see how confrontational the NDP and the Liberals were. The voting base of the NDP and the Liberals are nearer to each other than they are to conservatives. If anything the two should be working to ensure that no matter what we don't have Stephen Harper as our next PM. Hopefully if nessessary they will have the common sense to form a coalition and keep him out that way.

oh just curious did anyone figure out where Harper's getting 50 Billion dollars from. That's huge yet he won't say where. I mean even if he really can make everything more efficient... 50 Billion. No chance.

[ctjj.stevenson]

I guess that if I was around in the days of the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, I would gladly vote for the grits. The present day Liberals are not the same as in the days of Trudeau.

[HammerOfHope]

I'm signing on with the NDP unless something monumentally terrible happens. :)

[Jiggy]

NDP gets my vote, no doubt about it.
Its so logical and fits my needs. Socialism is a good idea

[Whiff]

isnt the meaning of conservatives that they favour traditional values and are opposed to change?

I am personally a full fledged NDP supporter

You can take a new approach and get traditional results.

[gunzgirl85]

after both watching the french and english debate, i've decided that the NDP need a chance....at least we have a chance also for a minority government...so we can keep tight reigns on them

Im glad to see that only one party wants to be Jr.USA, and that Jack Layton brought up US ! THE STUDENTS! Woohoo! yeah, paying down the debt but adding on to all of our debts...thats real fair!

[Chapstik]

GO NDP!!! privatisation took away 50 peoples jobs in my town... and jack wants to take away privatisation... so im all for NDP!!!! YAY!!

you may not think 50 people is alot..its alot at a hospital.. and in a small town (only 15,000) :p

[Rider]

I Am all for liberal.. :D


I really don't like what I've been hearing about what the conservatives plan to do if they come into power.

I watched the debate, It was awsome. lol.

That whole Star Wars thing was messed, that was the first I've heard about it.....who would put weapons in space, honestly..!?!?!

[Wood]

.....who would put weapons in space, honestly..!?!?!

*cough*George W. Bush and Stephen Harper */cough*

[Ching]

Weapons in space... Pshh. Don't we have more weapons than we can handle down here already?? What a dumb idea. :rolleyes:

[HammerOfHope]

I can't wait till they start weaponizing space! :rolleyes:


(Note to Paul Martin: If weaponization were a real word it would mean "the act of turning space into a weapon" which doesn't make much sense either.)

[Thib]

Harper also seemed to know that Canadians in general are liberal minded, and do not agree with his social policies.


On what do you base this? From a poll? Something you learn? Or your personal view?

One of the reason people would vote for the CP might be the value defended by them is closer to their own. In a country so vast and divided that his Canada it is hard to say how a candian think.

[Wood]

I can't wait till they start weaponizing space! :rolleyes:


(Note to Paul Martin: If weaponization were a real word it would mean "the act of turning space into a weapon" which doesn't make much sense either.)

1) I sure hope you're kidding. You support the start of an arms race that could have catastrophic results?

2) Just because you can't find it on dictionary.com doesn't mean that its suddenly not a word. Its well used to carry percisely the meaning he was talking about, here's a random UN document, how many times do the use the word weaponization?

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm



On what do you base this? From a poll? Something you learn? Or your personal view?

I was basing it on the last decade of elections. Canadians continual support of the Charter of Rights and freedoms. There's already a poll on this forum that shows how Canadians feel about gay rights. The fact that our political spectrum itself is shifted to the left.

If you think Canadians don't like the ideas of liberalism then why doesn't a conservative canidate base his bid for the PM spot on his ideaology? Hmmm I'm against gay rights, for the death penalty, against public health care, for privatization, against Unions, for big companies, against the environment, for an agressive military policy, against the rule of law, for parlimentary supremacy, against French rights for George W. Bush.

Why do other people have to bring it up as a way to "attack" the CPC? Why did Harper's handlers tell him not to mention them? Why would all the analysers state that in order to win the debate Paul Martin needed to uncover Harper's social ideas.

[gunzgirl85]

1)
If you think Canadians don't like the ideas of liberalism then why doesn't a conservative canidate base his bid for the PM spot on his ideaology? Hmmm I'm against gay rights, for the death penalty, against public health care, for privatization, against Unions, for big companies, against the environment, for an agressive military policy, against the rule of law, for parlimentary supremacy, against French rights for George W. Bush.



How could ppl have a mindset like that?
It makes me cry :(

[boxerboy50]

the beauty of democracy is that i have the right to vote without being arrested.the liberals dont get my vote, but neither does anyone else. if someone had a gun to my head, and forced me to fill out a ballot, i would vote liberal. as for the ndp, big thinkers, but they've screwed up in the past. the only party left to vote for in canada is the leninist-marxist communist party of canada. serious. dead serious. the only reason i cant vote is they dont have a candidate in my riding. a socialist utopia in canada is quite possible within the next 50 years.

[piper]

How could ppl have a mindset like that?
It makes me cry :(

A politician with the stones to stand up for Canada, yeah, that its wierd isn't it? Haven't had a leader like that since Trudeau. We desperatly need a new leader with the strength to stand up for Canada, that person is Mr. Harper. If we aren't friends with the States, who should we be allied with then, China, or maybye Swaziland? If our military isn't strong enough to defend us, whats the point? Those who turns swords into plowshares are destined to plow the fields for those who didn't.

[Thib]

I was basing it on the last decade of elections. Canadians continual support of the Charter of Rights and freedoms. There's already a poll on this forum that shows how Canadians feel about gay rights. The fact that our political spectrum itself is shifted to the left..

I am sorry, but I don't think a CW poll show how Canadians feels about gay rights. First, in this poll you can have vote from Australian, Brithish or other nationalities. Also, there is no way to know if we have a wide enaugh selection of all group of age, ethnies or all the other stuff that's needed to make a serious poll on how the Canadian feel.



If you think Canadians don't like the ideas of liberalism then why doesn't a conservative canidate base his bid for the PM spot on his ideaology? Hmmm I'm against gay rights, for the death penalty, against public health care, for privatization, against Unions, for big companies, against the environment, for an agressive military policy, against the rule of law, for parlimentary supremacy, against French rights for George W. Bush..

If we all know that, what's the difference if he tell it outloud or if he dosn't. When someone votes for the CP he know the views of some of the members. Samething can be said about the BQ, who try to make Leberals in Quebec voting for them by saying a vote for the BQ dosn't equal a vote for sovreignty but a vote for Quebec. So what's your point? Politicien don't say the what they really think? Most of us already know that

Also, didn't find Martin clear on Gay rights during the debate. But none of them are "dumb" enaugh to say something outloud that might make them loose vote, whatever the subject is.

[Wood]

I am sorry, but I don't think a CW poll show how Canadians feels about gay rights. First, in this poll you can have vote from Australian, Brithish or other nationalities. Also, there is no way to know if we have a wide enaugh selection of all group of age, ethnies or all the other stuff that's needed to make a serious poll on how the Canadian feel.



If we all know that, what's the difference if he tell it outloud or if he dosn't. When someone votes for the CP he know the views of some of the members. Samething can be said about the BQ, who try to make Leberals in Quebec voting for them by saying a vote for the BQ dosn't equal a vote for sovreignty but a vote for Quebec. So what's your point? Politicien don't say the what they really think? Most of us already know that

Also, didn't find Martin clear on Gay rights during the debate. But none of them are "dumb" enaugh to say something outloud that might make them loose vote, whatever the subject is.

The poll's at over 100 to 18.... the forum is predominantly Canadian If Canadians felt the opposite way the poll would reflect that.

What's the difference between him saying this is what I stand for and keeping his mouth shut. That's ridiculous tell us what we're voting for instead of hiding it. Trying to claim that you don't care about what is most pressing on your conscience isn't exactly giving people a choice.

Martin was pretty clear, its in the Charter, he respects the Charter. Gays have rights under Canadian Law.

[gunzgirl85]

A politician with the stones to stand up for Canada, yeah, that its wierd isn't it? Haven't had a leader like that since Trudeau. We desperatly need a new leader with the strength to stand up for Canada, that person is Mr. Harper. If we aren't friends with the States, who should we be allied with then, China, or maybye Swaziland? If our military isn't strong enough to defend us, whats the point? Those who turns swords into plowshares are destined to plow the fields for those who didn't.
HEY what did we tell you!
don't post stuff like this in this thread PLEASE!

Geeze it was pretty easy instruction, no hating the ndp/liberals in here..

We are friends with USA, only we dont have to be overruled by them. Our closest allie should be the commonwealth. Why not allie with China? because their communist and thats wrong? :rolleyes: get off your high hat.
Defend ourselves againt what? the star wars missles that ill malfunction and blow up the planet. seriously, our military is there to help others..not defend ourselves cause veryone hates us :rolleyes:

[HammerOfHope]

1) I sure hope you're kidding. You support the start of an arms race that could have catastrophic results?

2) Just because you can't find it on dictionary.com doesn't mean that its suddenly not a word. Its well used to carry percisely the meaning he was talking about, here's a random UN document, how many times do the use the word weaponization?

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm
1) I don't believe in adding extra characters after my comments to denote sarcasm. Context and the occasional emoticon should suffice.

2) You got me on the "not a word" thing, but I maintain that Martin was using it incorrectly. He was talking about sending weapons into space, not turning space into weapon.

[Thib]

The poll's at over 100 to 18.... the forum is predominantly Canadian If Canadians felt the opposite way the poll would reflect that.. The poll on CW are for fun or to see how the people of CW feel about a certain question. It can't be use to show how canadian feel, we have no way to know if the samples if representative of the Canadian population. Finaly, out of those 100, the didn't all vote for it "dosn't bother me" or "They have just as much right as the next person". Also in the answer there isn't one for people that disagree because of religious reason, but no answer for one who disagree for other then religious. Also, look at the wide range of anser: Some say has long has they don't show it publicly. This isn't really a sign of acceptance then other voters has show. The poll that you're using is only one question about one value, not all value. You're using one poll that agree with you and making it your argument. It's like people who only use the argument that help them defand a postion and forget the other one. It's a little like I said in the Chirac thread.



What's the difference between him saying this is what I stand for and keeping his mouth shut. That's ridiculous tell us what we're voting for instead of hiding it. Trying to claim that you don't care about what is most pressing on your conscience isn't exactly giving people a choice.
But it's how all politician work... now tell me if you know one who is going to say clearly something that will make him loose vote? None, like I just said those guys are not dumb and they know what to say and not to say.




Martin was pretty clear, its in the Charter, he respects the Charter. Gays have rights under Canadian Law.
His position is to respect whet the court will say. It dosn't mean he agree it don't mean he disagree about it. Is position is to respect the court ruling. He dosn't take a clear postion. If the court say NO he say NO if the court say YES he say YES

[Wood]

But it's how all politician work... now tell me if you know one who is going to say clearly something that will make him loose vote? None, like I just said those guys are not dumb and they know what to say and not to say.



His position is to respect whet the court will say. It dosn't mean he agree it don't mean he disagree about it. Is position is to respect the court ruling. He dosn't take a clear postion. If the court say NO he say NO if the court say YES he say YES

Ok, you concede why are we arguing. Canadians prefer liberalism over conservatism, hence why him saying otherwise would make him lose votes.

Him saying that he respects the Law of the Land and the Charter the most important satute isn't clear? Homosexuals have entrenched rights under the Charter that has been known for sometime now. Sending their case infront of the supreme court strengthened their legal stance more than legislation would have (since everyone knew what the Supreme court would decide (and if they didn't here is where legislation would be useful). It prevented the Conservatives from coming in and reversing the legislation. The only way you can do that now is by envoking the notwithstanding clause, which Martin has tried to pin Harper into saying he would or wouldn't use it.

[Earlam]

HEY what did we tell you!
don't post stuff like this in this thread PLEASE!

Geeze it was pretty easy instruction, no hating the ndp/liberals in here..

We are friends with USA, only we dont have to be overruled by them. Our closest allie should be the commonwealth. Why not allie with China? because their communist and thats wrong? :rolleyes: get off your high hat.
Defend ourselves againt what? the star wars missles that ill malfunction and blow up the planet. seriously, our military is there to help others..not defend ourselves cause veryone hates us :rolleyes:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Trudeau was a Liberal, was he not? A socialist even?
So how is complimenting him (although I'm sure Piper disagrees with many of his policies..... I know I don't like his policies at all, even if I do respect Trudeau himself) an attack on the Liberals or NDP?
I'm just so confused.......


And some of the things said about Mr. Harper's policies are just plain crazy.
Against the environment?
How in the Hell can you be against the environment? Sure, maybe there's the odd crackpot who's life's dream is to nuke the rainforest until there's nothing left, have everyone on Earth **** in a plastic bag and throw it in the ocean at the same time, or create an uber-virus designed to turn whales into plankton-eating-suicide-machines...... but really.

[Juice]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to vote for someone who wants to bring United States policy into Canada. I'm all for a strong military, but when you need to start cutting health care funding to make it stronger, that's crossing the line. And what's up with getting rid of the Kioto Accord? That's just not a very good idea at all. The way i see it, if we vote in Stephen Harper, then we might as well cede to the United States, because we'll be following almost directly in GWB's footsteps.

Vote NDP. Canada needs a change.

[whalersailore]

I see this as a an election of whether or not you agree with the canada now or the one in dept ten years ago.

[Thib]

Ok, you concede why are we arguing. Canadians prefer liberalism over conservatism, hence why him saying otherwise would make him lose votes.

I conceded that martin never said that he agree with gay mariage he will let the cour descide, but he never took personal position (is position is to let other descide). Now, I am sure that gay right isn't the only issue that make us liberalism over conservatism? We need to look in general your only using one argument and closing your eyes on the oder. Lool. Also, yes the Liberal have been in power for the last 10 year but we need to see why? Is it only because they where the best or could there be other reason that made a groupe of Canadian vote Liberal because it was the less worst of 2 option they had.

[Wood]

I'm pretty sure I named more than one reason why Canadians prefer liberal ideas to conservative ones? Hmmm, the death penalty, two tier health care, promotion of systematic inequality.

The personal ideas of one man on a minority group are irrelevant, all that matters is the law of the land.

[piper]

seriously, our military is there to help others..not defend ourselves cause veryone hates us :rolleyes:

That is so very, very, very wrong. That was a very naive statement you just made. And besides, if I don't churn up the waters to make a discussion, these threads all stay the same, just YAY for this party threads with no real discussion.

[Earlam]

We are friends with USA, only we dont have to be overruled by them. Our closest allie should be the commonwealth. Why not allie with China? because their communist and thats wrong? :rolleyes: get off your high hat.
Defend ourselves againt what? the star wars missles that ill malfunction and blow up the planet. seriously, our military is there to help others..not defend ourselves cause veryone hates us :rolleyes:

Oh, my. In my haste, I forgot to respond to this, yes, very wrong statement.



i) The Commonwealth is not a military alliance, or even an economic one. It is just a forum for discussion between former British colonies. Much like the UN, but with no military power under just about any circumstances.
Pakistan and India were both Commonwealth members during a couple of wars they had together. Being in the Commonwealth doesn't mean anything.
ii) Why not ally ourselves with China?
a) They are a communist nation, and used to be the enemy.
b) Their human-rights track record ain't the prettiest in the world.
c) We don't share a continent with them, so mutual defence agreements are worth alot less than they are with the good 'ole US of A.
d) Their military, though large, is technologically inferior to our own. And with our military situation, that is a very bad thing to have in our corner.
e) We're already enjoying pretty good relations with them. So it's not true that we're completely unassociated with them or anything. Heck, the pencil I just glanced at was made in China. Who'da thunkit?

iii) Defend ourselves against:
a) Terrorist attacks
b) The Danish (not the Dutch, as everyone keeps saying) claiming parts of our sovereign territory
c) The US floating military craft through our Arctic Ocean territory whenever they feel like it
d) The US floating a cruiser in between Vancouver Island and the mainland whenever they feel like it

Besides that, there's also the wierd fact: Nobody cares what you have to say if you don't have the guns to back it up.
Argentina knocking off Bombardier's jet? Our solution: Let them, we're Canadian. My solution: threaten to bomb the factory. If neccessary, do so (when nobody's working, of course).
I could go on for essays on this topic, so I'm gonna stop typing now.

iv) You obviously have no idea what the Star Wars program is. Do some research before you post something like that, or at least try to seem informed. I highly doubt if a surface-to-space shrapnel missile is going to blow up the planet. Or any of the other possible armaments involved in SDI, for that matter.

v) Our military is NOT there to help others. Most definitely not.
Our MILITARY is there to KILL PEOPLE. That is the most basic function of a military. It is a political tool, used to kill people. That was its original purpose, and that will always be its primary role.
The purpose of the Canadian military is to defend Canada, Canadians, and Canadian interests by any means that Parliament deems neccessary.
Peacekeeping and police work are nice things to do, but they are not the primary role of our MILITARY (as in, the Canadian Armed Forces, not the RCMP).

A military is meant to kill people. The CF included.
Don't anybody ever forget that.

[gunzgirl85]

Sorry im keeping by my guns with my statement.

the military is there to kill ppl. period.

What? are you serious?
Even Steven Harper intends to invest most of his bugdet to PEACEKEEPING


and i was not talking about a military alliance, i was talking about a political one, or just because we're nice alliance. Like the G8 summit. i count that.

ohhh we're gonna defend ourselves from terrorist attacks..canada is the best country in the world. when we travel, others go "oh your from Canada :D "
now im not saying a terrorist attack couldn't happen, im saying that we should not invest as much as the States, because we aren't them. Its different here.

and whats wrong with China being a communist nation? except maybe they don't like our Capitalist minds, but they aren't bad for being communist. Look up the communist party thread.

and i rather like my "yey go liberal/NDP thinkers" thread thank you.
I haven't even gone into the conservative thread and i thought you would understand respecting the boundaries that both threads asked.

[gunzgirl85]

Oh and guess what else!?
what if we didn't have any weapons at ALL
hmm? except for hunting meat.
or blowing up asteroids coming to destroy the earth
we are most likely to blow up ourselves then that happening

[piper]

New York is 2 hours flight time from Toronto and Montreal, we were named in Al Quida threats and those guys who flew those planes sure weren't on a joyride gone wrong. We have enemies, and to defend ourselves, we need a strong country and a strong military.

Ask our moderator, hes in the CF, there is no such thing as a peacekeeping army. A well, trained, well equiped and motivated COMBAT military can do all things such as peacekeeping, civil assistance etc. But remember, the purpose of a military is to apply deadly force to our enemies, not to hand out little Canada flags. I had to clear that up, really gets to me when people can be so naive and say that.

See that quote in my thingy block? Thats how the world works even though the pink fuzzy happy everyone-loves-us bunny says otherwise.

[Thib]

I'm pretty sure I named more than one reason why Canadians prefer liberal ideas to conservative ones? Hmmm, the death penalty, two tier health care, promotion of systematic inequality.


Then again where do you take your source to say that Canadians prefer liberal idea to the conservative ones?

[gunzgirl85]

Then again where do you take your source to say that Canadians prefer liberal idea to the conservative ones?
because they have had a majority government for the past 10 years? :rolleyes:

[Thib]

because they have had a majority government for the past 10 years? :rolleyes:

But we need to look why? Why where the Liberal able to beat the Conservative in Québec? Does it show a sign of support for the new ideology? Because they didn't have an other federalist solution? After the defeat of Jean Charest to Kim Campbell, the PC was no longer strong in Quebec. Lets not forget Meech. Now, if the Liberal would have only have the support of Ontario would they have been able to form a majority governement during a decade? All those question need to be answer only for one province. I am sure we can ask some other question about why the population of each provinces voted for a party. Was it because of their ideology or for other reason.

[piper]

because they have had a majority government for the past 10 years? :rolleyes:

Because when we Canadians have a gov't who we dislike, and know is corrupt, and know is a giant mass of a**, we do what we Canadians do best in this situation...vote them back into power.

[Earlam]

Oh and guess what else!?
what if we didn't have any weapons at ALL
hmm? except for hunting meat.
or blowing up asteroids coming to destroy the earth
we are most likely to blow up ourselves then that happening

You mean,
what if everyone in the ENTIRE WORLD gave up their arms?

I can't debate with this.......

And please, do come into the Conservative thread.
Threads on this forum are supposed to be for debate (I think), not for patting people-of-like-mind on the back.
We've got a couple of left-leaning people dominating it at the moment, actually. I, personally, don't mind a bit. Join in the fun!

[gunzgirl85]

You mean,
what if everyone in the ENTIRE WORLD gave up their arms?

I can't debate with this.......



no but isn't it a good idea? i mean its the other end of the spectrum :D

[Ching]

I think it's a better idea, but far less likely. :(

[hubert]

iii) Defend ourselves against:

c) The US floating military craft through our Arctic Ocean territory whenever they feel like it
d) The US floating a cruiser in between Vancouver Island and the mainland whenever they feel like it

what did you have in mind for the CF? destroy the american ships?


Besides that, there's also the wierd fact: Nobody cares what you have to say if you don't have the guns to back it up.
Argentina knocking off Bombardier's jet? Our solution: Let them, we're Canadian. My solution: threaten to bomb the factory. If neccessary, do so (when nobody's working, of course).

uhh...okay. when you run for prime minister make sure you let the voters hear that one


v) Our military is NOT there to help others. Most definitely not.
Our MILITARY is there to KILL PEOPLE. That is the most basic function of a military. It is a political tool, used to kill people. That was its original purpose, and that will always be its primary role.
The purpose of the Canadian military is to defend Canada, Canadians, and Canadian interests by any means that Parliament deems neccessary.
Peacekeeping and police work are nice things to do, but they are not the primary role of our MILITARY (as in, the Canadian Armed Forces, not the RCMP).

A military is meant to kill people. The CF included.
Don't anybody ever forget that.

the role of the military changes, and we canadians as peaceloving folks would rather think of our armed forces as a force of good, one that sets out to defend the nation while at its leisure, lends a helping hand to others who are less fortunate. since canada is not exactly fighting a war right now, the military can do its extra-curricular activities at its convenience. so we go to afghanistan, haiti, bosnia, to help people, not to kill them. your warmongering way of thinking really scares me

[hubert]

Because when we Canadians have a gov't who we dislike, and know is corrupt, and know is a giant mass of a**, we do what we Canadians do best in this situation...vote them back into power.

only because the alternative was a government whom the people disliked even more. the liberals were voted into office, don't blame the democratic process just because you don't like the results

[Wood]

Because when we Canadians have a gov't who we dislike, and know is corrupt, and know is a giant mass of a**, we do what we Canadians do best in this situation...vote them back into power.

That's ridiculous... illogical and obviously biased. If democracy isn't suited for you the Americans have a saying that might apply.


Canadian Foreign policy has to relate to the current worldwide situation. It has nothing to do with building an army verses not building an army, it has to do with what we want our army to do. Somethings that Harper wants are only suited if the Canadian military means to engage in conflicts against a conventional military force aka another nation.

I don't want to be an agressive military orientated nation who is willing to use force over reason. Or engage in illegal wars of regime changes. That's the policy he wants I don't agree.

Canada is a peacekeeping nation, that's main threat to its sovereignty comes from the threat of terrorism. That's the sitution, we do not have to prepare for an invasion from foreign troops. That's not the purpose of the military, and large threats are an ocean away. The threats here at home require the ability to small amounts of military assests, quickly and effectively, most likely under Norad's direction. Here clarity in the chain of command needs to be dealt with.

For overseas, we need the ability to move troops overseas quickly in the event of a peacekeeping need or terrorist emergency. Boats will not suffice, not with the nature of Canada's foriegn policy. We need rapid deployment.

[Earlam]

what did you have in mind for the CF? destroy the american ships?

uhh...okay. when you run for prime minister make sure you let the voters hear that one

the role of the military changes, and we canadians as peaceloving folks would rather think of our armed forces as a force of good, one that sets out to defend the nation while at its leisure, lends a helping hand to others who are less fortunate. since canada is not exactly fighting a war right now, the military can do its extra-curricular activities at its convenience. so we go to afghanistan, haiti, bosnia, to help people, not to kill them. your warmongering way of thinking really scares me

i) The CF should float its own cruiser or icebreaker through our waters every once in a while. We have no right to territory we can't defend.

ii) When I run for PM, I'll make my opinions clear. Nobody should get to trample over Canada, the US included.

iii) The role of the military, since the dawn of time, has been to kill enemies. This is what a military does, this is what a military is.
We peaceloving Canadians do like to do extracurricular peacekeeping and support work, and that is definitely a good thing.
But it is not the military's primary role, and it never will be.
If it was, the CF should cease to exist, and we should give the helicopters to the RCMP, because all they'll be is a police force.
It's nice to do things besides fight a war with the military.
But if there's ever a war to fight, I want to be damned sure the military is prepared to fight it. Otherwise, what's the point?

My "warmongering" is scary?
You know what scares the living crap out of me?
Naive idealists without a firm grip on reality.

And in a democracy, it is our democratic right to complain about the democratic process (especially when it's not as democratic as it ought to be).

(Oh, and welcome back)


Wood, what makes you think reason and force are seperate?

Terrorism is not a threat to Canadian sovereignty. Terrorists can't take our territory, they can only terrorize. They are a threat to the Canadian people, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Our supposed allies are a threat to Canadian territory, and should also be dealt with accordingly. No free islands/oceans just because we're friendly.

We do need a quick reaction force. That should be one of the military's biggest goals.
What we also need is a viable force to patrol our territory, ensuring that it isn't annexed by the Central African Republic (if you let Denmark have an island, how long before the Democratic Republic of the Congo sends troops to annex Ottawa? Yes, that was a joke).


We are not a peacekeeping nation. There is no such thing. That's like saying the US and Canada are "friends".

[Wood]

i)

Wood, what makes you think reason and force are seperate?

Terrorism is not a threat to Canadian sovereignty. Terrorists can't take our territory, they can only terrorize. They are a threat to the Canadian people, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Our supposed allies are a threat to Canadian territory, and should also be dealt with accordingly. No free islands/oceans just because we're friendly.

We do need a quick reaction force. That should be one of the military's biggest goals.
What we also need is a viable force to patrol our territory, ensuring that it isn't annexed by the Central African Republic (if you let Denmark have an island, how long before the Democratic Republic of the Congo sends troops to annex Ottawa? Yes, that was a joke).


We are not a peacekeeping nation. There is no such thing. That's like saying the US and Canada are "friends".

Terrorism ultimately is a risk to our soveriengty, as a result of terrorism changes the way the nation is run and doesn't let us live the way we want to live.

Increasing soverignty patrols is basically all your saying, quite frankly we are not going to stop the US from doing whatever they want through military force. Nor would that be a move that would gain popular support.

Not to mention I haven't seen anything that suggests the conservatives mean to antagonize the US, more like give away Canada's claim to the islands.

[Earlam]

Terrorism ultimately is a risk to our soveriengty, as a result of terrorism changes the way the nation is run and doesn't let us live the way we want to live.

Increasing soverignty patrols is basically all your saying, quite frankly we are not going to stop the US from doing whatever they want through military force. Nor would that be a move that would gain popular support.

Not to mention I haven't seen anything that suggests the conservatives mean to antagonize the US, more like give away Canada's claim to the islands.

I'll give you the terrorism point.

Increased sovereignty patrols, yes. And a force to back them up. Not a massive, US-massive-force kinda thing, but something more than we have now.

I don't propose we sink a US military ship or anything. But no matter who is invading our territory, it is still an invasion. Ally or not, that kind of behaviour is completely intolerable, and we shouldn't be putting up with it.

Yes, the Conservatives are a bit too buddy-buddy with the US for my tastes. But hey, they beat the Liberals, in my books, any day.
When they win, I'll organize a petition or email campaign of some sort to get them to defend Canada's territorial integrity. Here's hopin'.

[Juice]

Yes, the Conservatives are a bit too buddy-buddy with the US for my tastes. But hey, they beat the Liberals, in my books, any day.
When they win, I'll organize a petition or email campaign of some sort to get them to defend Canada's territorial integrity. Here's hopin'.

Youre living in a dream world. Go NDP!!

[hubert]

i) The CF should float its own cruiser or icebreaker through our waters every once in a while. We have no right to territory we can't defend.

hate to break the news to you but that's been done since the 1990s. that's okay though, sometimes it's good to be a keener


ii) When I run for PM, I'll make my opinions clear. Nobody should get to trample over Canada, the US included.

that's great, i'm happy for you


iii) The role of the military, since the dawn of time, has been to kill enemies. This is what a military does, this is what a military is.
We peaceloving Canadians do like to do extracurricular peacekeeping and support work, and that is definitely a good thing.
But it is not the military's primary role, and it never will be.

technically we are enemies with north korea, so are we going to invade them oops i mean "liberate" them and install oops i mean "lay the foundations for" a puppet oops i mean a "democratic" government? that's what you're saying, is it not? kill them all is your idea of a good military


If it was, the CF should cease to exist, and we should give the helicopters to the RCMP, because all they'll be is a police force.
It's nice to do things besides fight a war with the military.
But if there's ever a war to fight, I want to be damned sure the military is prepared to fight it. Otherwise, what's the point?

i don't know if you watch the news but it's been quoted many times by the leaders of this nation (all parties) that the current predominant role for Canada's armed forces is one of peacekeeping. currently, anyway


My "warmongering" is scary?
You know what scares the living crap out of me?
Naive idealists without a firm grip on reality.

sure whatever you say, personally i would've thought people who think war solves all the world's problems are what cause problems in this world. your ideologies remind me of this little man with this mustache, and more recently, bush

[Juice]

thats exactly the problem with the world. It has always been thought to take over and assimilate people into our way of thinking. A good word to describe this is Nationalism. Extreme patriotism is a good way of describing this, genocide is the bad side of it. Look what the States is doing in Iraq. They are trying to turn it into a small America, or overseas territory for those who know the terminology. They are making it look like they are giving complete sovereignty to the Iraqi people, but I can gurantee that there will still be someone who is American there, "keeping an eye on things" or rather, making sure American interests come first.

War has always been the bane of human existence, and if we dont stop and realize that, pretty soon there will not be a world left to live in. With all these new technologies, where the things that are being bombed cost less than the bombs that are being dropped, we need to stop and ask why? Why do we have the need for these things? Why must the US have enough nuclear weaponry to wipe out ALL life on the planet 13 times over? When is enoug enough? Why cant we all just shake hands and give up the arrogance, because thats what it is. its arrogance. Our country is better than their country. If youre not with us youre against us. Its "us" versus "them." Its almost to the point where we dont even know who "them" are anymore. When you start suspecting your own citizens and enforcing laws that take away people's freedoms just because they belong to a certain faith or are a certain race, no matter what their passport says, the line has been crossed and if we dont stop and think about what is happening out there, not just abroad, but in our own backyard, then there wont be any going back and that is a point where I for one do not want to get to.

[Earlam]

hate to break the news to you but that's been done since the 1990s. that's okay though, sometimes it's good to be a keener

that's great, i'm happy for you

technically we are enemies with north korea, so are we going to invade them oops i mean "liberate" them and install oops i mean "lay the foundations for" a puppet oops i mean a "democratic" government? that's what you're saying, is it not? kill them all is your idea of a good military

i don't know if you watch the news but it's been quoted many times by the leaders of this nation (all parties) that the current predominant role for Canada's armed forces is one of peacekeeping. currently, anyway

sure whatever you say, personally i would've thought people who think war solves all the world's problems are what cause problems in this world. your ideologies remind me of this little man with this mustache, and more recently, bush


I don't know where you're getting some of this stuff, but alright. I guess I hold views that are held by people that would think like you apparently believe I think. I'll run with it.

By every once in a while, I meant often. Not occasional. It's our territory, and we should patrol it enough that nobody contests that claim.

Where did I say anything about 'liberating' every enemy we have and installing 'democratic' governments? I'm not an advocate of regime change (most of the time). And even if I were, that's not what I'm saying at all.
"Kill them all" is not my idea of a good military. That is not at all what I was saying, and I don't see how you got that out of my words.
What I'm doing is pointing out the fact that the point of a military is to kill people when the politicians tell them to. This is not a point to be debated, it is a solid, undisputed fact. Ask any world leader (when the cameras aren't running, of course, as people are getting increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of killing the enemy lately).
A MILITARY is meant to kill people. They can do other things, but they were originally for the purpose of killing, and that has been their primary role for the last 10 000 years (and more, but that's as far back as my reading has taken me thus far, and I'm sure details get a wee bit sketchy before that).
It will remain a military's primary role. That is what a military is, and that is what a military does.
You want police work, you talk to the RCMP.
(This doesn't mean the military is incapable of doing police work. It just means that it's not their primary role, and God help us if it ever turns out like that).

The current predominant role of Canada's MILITARY is peacekeeping?
Wrong.
You're listening to politicians. The job of a politician is to say what people want to hear. People don't like to hear that there are Canadians perfectly capable of killing other human beings, and trained to do so.
Peacekeeping is an important secondary role for Canada's military, but it is a secondary role. I wonder if any CF personnel on here would like to correct me (if so, I'll concede you the point. Then start writing hundreds of letters to everyone MP or above in the country telling them why we're in such a sorry state and what to do about it).

War doesn't solve all of the world's problems. But thinking that everything can be solved without armed force is naive and ignorant.
There are certain realities in the world that the population of the entire Western world find distasteful. So we deny them. This is the most dangerous course of action that we, as a society, could possibly take.

You compare me to Hitler. Congratulations, you're the thousandth person to do so! If I were a website, you'd win a prize.

I compare you to Neville Chamberlain (I'm pretty sure I spelled that wrong...). You remember, the guy who thought a military confrontation with my apparent former self was preventable?
He thought that the problem could be solved through discussion, without any use of force. Do you know where that ended up? World War Two. Over 40 000 dead from Canada alone.

There are lines that shouldn't be allowed to bend. If someone enters your territory with a military vessel without your permission, you have been invaded. It doesn't matter if they're your closest allies, it's still an invasion.
The proper response isn't neccessarily to blow their ship up, but you can't just ignore it. Rolling over didn't get Chamberlin anywhere, and it won't get Canada anywhere.

[Juice]

I don't know where you're getting some of this stuff, but alright. I guess I hold views that are held by people that would think like you apparently believe I think. I'll run with it.

By every once in a while, I meant often. Not occasional. It's our territory, and we should patrol it enough that nobody contests that claim.

Where did I say anything about 'liberating' every enemy we have and installing 'democratic' governments? I'm not an advocate of regime change (most of the time). And even if I were, that's not what I'm saying at all.
"Kill them all" is not my idea of a good military. That is not at all what I was saying, and I don't see how you got that out of my words.
What I'm doing is pointing out the fact that the point of a military is to kill people when the politicians tell them to. This is not a point to be debated, it is a solid, undisputed fact. Ask any world leader (when the cameras aren't running, of course, as people are getting increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of killing the enemy lately).
A MILITARY is meant to kill people. They can do other things, but they were originally for the purpose of killing, and that has been their primary role for the last 10 000 years (and more, but that's as far back as my reading has taken me thus far, and I'm sure details get a wee bit sketchy before that).
It will remain a military's primary role. That is what a military is, and that is what a military does.
You want police work, you talk to the RCMP.
(This doesn't mean the military is incapable of doing police work. It just means that it's not their primary role, and God help us if it ever turns out like that).

The current predominant role of Canada's MILITARY is peacekeeping?
Wrong.
You're listening to politicians. The job of a politician is to say what people want to hear. People don't like to hear that there are Canadians perfectly capable of killing other human beings, and trained to do so.
Peacekeeping is an important secondary role for Canada's military, but it is a secondary role. I wonder if any CF personnel on here would like to correct me (if so, I'll concede you the point. Then start writing hundreds of letters to everyone MP or above in the country telling them why we're in such a sorry state and what to do about it).

War doesn't solve all of the world's problems. But thinking that everything can be solved without armed force is naive and ignorant.
There are certain realities in the world that the population of the entire Western world find distasteful. So we deny them. This is the most dangerous course of action that we, as a society, could possibly take.

You compare me to Hitler. Congratulations, you're the thousandth person to do so! If I were a website, you'd win a prize.

I compare you to Neville Chamberlain (I'm pretty sure I spelled that wrong...). You remember, the guy who thought a military confrontation with my apparent former self was preventable?
He thought that the problem could be solved through discussion, without any use of force. Do you know where that ended up? World War Two. Over 40 000 dead from Canada alone.

There are lines that shouldn't be allowed to bend. If someone enters your territory with a military vessel without your permission, you have been invaded. It doesn't matter if they're your closest allies, it's still an invasion.
The proper response isn't neccessarily to blow their ship up, but you can't just ignore it. Rolling over didn't get Chamberlin anywhere, and it won't get Canada anywhere.

I agree with everything you just put. Diplomacy is good, and should always be tried in any situation, but there are just some situations where diplomacy will just get you killed. And thats where you can't be afraid to use the military for its purpose, to kill. You are completely right and it is naiive to think that a military isnt trained to kill. It should always be a last resort to use military conflict, but it has to be used in certain cases. So let's get past the idea of war mongering, because I havent heard anyone on here calling for a war. All that I have seen is people saying that we should be defending our territory instead of backing down. It's OUR territory and no one, no matter how close allies we are with them, should have the right to invade it, and if they do, we need to start standing up for ourselves, simple as that. It doesnt call for a war, it calls for a show of courage that we wont take crap from anyone.

[piper]

I don't know where you're getting some of this stuff, but alright. I guess I hold views that are held by people that would think like you apparently believe I think. I'll run with it.

By every once in a while, I meant often. Not occasional. It's our territory, and we should patrol it enough that nobody contests that claim.

Where did I say anything about 'liberating' every enemy we have and installing 'democratic' governments? I'm not an advocate of regime change (most of the time). And even if I were, that's not what I'm saying at all.
"Kill them all" is not my idea of a good military. That is not at all what I was saying, and I don't see how you got that out of my words.
What I'm doing is pointing out the fact that the point of a military is to kill people when the politicians tell them to. This is not a point to be debated, it is a solid, undisputed fact. Ask any world leader (when the cameras aren't running, of course, as people are getting increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of killing the enemy lately).
A MILITARY is meant to kill people. They can do other things, but they were originally for the purpose of killing, and that has been their primary role for the last 10 000 years (and more, but that's as far back as my reading has taken me thus far, and I'm sure details get a wee bit sketchy before that).
It will remain a military's primary role. That is what a military is, and that is what a military does.
You want police work, you talk to the RCMP.
(This doesn't mean the military is incapable of doing police work. It just means that it's not their primary role, and God help us if it ever turns out like that).

The current predominant role of Canada's MILITARY is peacekeeping?
Wrong.
You're listening to politicians. The job of a politician is to say what people want to hear. People don't like to hear that there are Canadians perfectly capable of killing other human beings, and trained to do so.
Peacekeeping is an important secondary role for Canada's military, but it is a secondary role. I wonder if any CF personnel on here would like to correct me (if so, I'll concede you the point. Then start writing hundreds of letters to everyone MP or above in the country telling them why we're in such a sorry state and what to do about it).

War doesn't solve all of the world's problems. But thinking that everything can be solved without armed force is naive and ignorant.
There are certain realities in the world that the population of the entire Western world find distasteful. So we deny them. This is the most dangerous course of action that we, as a society, could possibly take.

You compare me to Hitler. Congratulations, you're the thousandth person to do so! If I were a website, you'd win a prize.

I compare you to Neville Chamberlain (I'm pretty sure I spelled that wrong...). You remember, the guy who thought a military confrontation with my apparent former self was preventable?
He thought that the problem could be solved through discussion, without any use of force. Do you know where that ended up? World War Two. Over 40 000 dead from Canada alone.

There are lines that shouldn't be allowed to bend. If someone enters your territory with a military vessel without your permission, you have been invaded. It doesn't matter if they're your closest allies, it's still an invasion.
The proper response isn't neccessarily to blow their ship up, but you can't just ignore it. Rolling over didn't get Chamberlin anywhere, and it won't get Canada anywhere.

Clap Clap. Good points, I could post what I think but I'll say, read the above. My thoughts exactly.

[piper]

I don't know where you're getting some of this stuff, but alright. I guess I hold views that are held by people that would think like you apparently believe I think. I'll run with it.

By every once in a while, I meant often. Not occasional. It's our territory, and we should patrol it enough that nobody contests that claim.

Where did I say anything about 'liberating' every enemy we have and installing 'democratic' governments? I'm not an advocate of regime change (most of the time). And even if I were, that's not what I'm saying at all.
"Kill them all" is not my idea of a good military. That is not at all what I was saying, and I don't see how you got that out of my words.
What I'm doing is pointing out the fact that the point of a military is to kill people when the politicians tell them to. This is not a point to be debated, it is a solid, undisputed fact. Ask any world leader (when the cameras aren't running, of course, as people are getting increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of killing the enemy lately).
A MILITARY is meant to kill people. They can do other things, but they were originally for the purpose of killing, and that has been their primary role for the last 10 000 years (and more, but that's as far back as my reading has taken me thus far, and I'm sure details get a wee bit sketchy before that).
It will remain a military's primary role. That is what a military is, and that is what a military does.
You want police work, you talk to the RCMP.
(This doesn't mean the military is incapable of doing police work. It just means that it's not their primary role, and God help us if it ever turns out like that).

The current predominant role of Canada's MILITARY is peacekeeping?
Wrong.
You're listening to politicians. The job of a politician is to say what people want to hear. People don't like to hear that there are Canadians perfectly capable of killing other human beings, and trained to do so.
Peacekeeping is an important secondary role for Canada's military, but it is a secondary role. I wonder if any CF personnel on here would like to correct me (if so, I'll concede you the point. Then start writing hundreds of letters to everyone MP or above in the country telling them why we're in such a sorry state and what to do about it).

War doesn't solve all of the world's problems. But thinking that everything can be solved without armed force is naive and ignorant.
There are certain realities in the world that the population of the entire Western world find distasteful. So we deny them. This is the most dangerous course of action that we, as a society, could possibly take.

You compare me to Hitler. Congratulations, you're the thousandth person to do so! If I were a website, you'd win a prize.

I compare you to Neville Chamberlain (I'm pretty sure I spelled that wrong...). You remember, the guy who thought a military confrontation with my apparent former self was preventable?
He thought that the problem could be solved through discussion, without any use of force. Do you know where that ended up? World War Two. Over 40 000 dead from Canada alone.

There are lines that shouldn't be allowed to bend. If someone enters your territory with a military vessel without your permission, you have been invaded. It doesn't matter if they're your closest allies, it's still an invasion.
The proper response isn't neccessarily to blow their ship up, but you can't just ignore it. Rolling over didn't get Chamberlin anywhere, and it won't get Canada anywhere.

Clap Clap. Good points, I could post what I think but what I'll say is, read the above. My thoughts exactly. The naive-ity of people on this website scares me, some of them are even old enough to vote and influence how this country could go...frightening.

[Juice]

Clap Clap. Good points, I could post what I think but what I'll say is, read the above. My thoughts exactly. The naive-ity of people on this website scares me, some of them are even old enough to vote and influence how this country could go...frightening.

Yep, that is scary, but what is even more scary is that there are people out there that have absolutely no idea what is going on out there and have no idea about any of the issues, and they vote for people based on who the "most popular" one is, or the one with the most welcoming promises (that usually end up broken). Plus, the fact that only about 20-30% fo voters actually vote. thats scary too, because then its not really democratic and the decision for who will run the 100% of voters is mad by 30% of them, which is where most of the people who have no idea come from. Now THAT'S frightening.

[Feeloo]

20-30% of voter vote? Is that like the voting turnout, and if it is, it's more like 60-70% of people that vote.

[wb256]

However, we're in a far different situation than Chamerlain was at the dawn of WW2. I don't believe that this one mistake should be used to justify maintaining a large military and never trying to appease anyone ever again. It didn't work in the case of WW2, but in other situations it may work far better than armed conflict.

Obviously the primary role of our armed forces is to kill people, soldiers are hired/trained killers. However, there's no one that needs to be killed at this point, and little indication that the sort of warfare that requires a large military will occour between Canada and anyone else ever.

And allowing allies to navigate military vehicles across our land/water/air is not an invasion - but chances are I'm not sure what you're referring to fully (could you tell me the exact situation?)

[Earlam]

And allowing allies to navigate military vehicles across our land/water/air is not an invasion - but chances are I'm not sure what you're referring to fully (could you tell me the exact situation?)

I'll run with the following example for now.
British submarines in Canadian waters in the Arctic Ocean.

They are our allies, yes.
But when you enter someone else's territory in an armed military vessel without permission, I don't think that matters. In my opinion, that constitutes a military invasion. It's a violation of Canadian sovereignty.


I don't think we need a massive military, because you're right. We're not going to be fighting any WW2-style conflicts anytime soon.
But just because we don't need a 2 million man army doesn't mean we should cut down to 50 000 (slight exaggeration of current state of affairs).

Things are alot different than they were for Chamberlain, but we can still learn from his mistakes. I think appeasement is very rarely a good option (if ever).


(And thanks for the support guys. It's good to know I'm not the only one who sees things this way.)

[piper]

Ok, bully in the schoolyard goes up to three other kids. He has a stick in his hands, and tells all three kids he wants their lunch money. The first one says no, but seeing as he does not have a stick, he gets beat up and loses his money. The second says no, and has a little skinny stick in his hand, the bully takes a little step back, since the kid has what appears to be a way to defend himself, but laughs and beats him up too since the stick is to small to be of any good. The third kid says no as well, but this one has a sturdy and tough (not necessarily huge) stick. The bully steps back and leaves this one alone, because this third kid has a stick to back up what he says and to defend himself from other bullies with sticks. This is a micro example of how the world works. You need a sturdy stick to keep away all the bad guys, because if you can't back up what you say, who's going to take you seriously?

"Go away big bad terrorist, can't we just be friends? Want to hug this tree with me?" Sorry, it don't work that way in the world and we sure aren't in Kansas anymore. It's nice to be friendly to all (I'm a happy person too), but sometimes you and your country gotta pack away that smile and bring out the 'I'm not taking c***' face. And when that time comes, do you want your country to have a little skinny stick or good sturdy stick in its hands?

[hubert]

I don't know where you're getting some of this stuff, but alright. I guess I hold views that are held by people that would think like you apparently believe I think. I'll run with it.

By every once in a while, I meant often. Not occasional. It's our territory, and we should patrol it enough that nobody contests that claim.

while none of us really knows the schedules of the coast guard icebreakers or naval frigates for patrolling the northern passes, how can you complain about it? you don't even know when they're there, how can you say anything about them not being there enough?


Where did I say anything about 'liberating' every enemy we have and installing 'democratic' governments? I'm not an advocate of regime change (most of the time)...
What I'm doing is pointing out the fact that the point of a military is to kill people when the politicians tell them to...

again, the role of the military changes, as with the views of society. ask any canadian, and the first thing that pops in their minds when the topic is the CF is likely to be peacekeeping.


The current predominant role of Canada's MILITARY is peacekeeping?
Wrong.
You're listening to politicians. The job of a politician is to say what people want to hear. People don't like to hear that there are Canadians perfectly capable of killing other human beings, and trained to do so.
Peacekeeping is an important secondary role for Canada's military, but it is a secondary role. I wonder if any CF personnel on here would like to correct me (if so, I'll concede you the point. Then start writing hundreds of letters to everyone MP or above in the country telling them why we're in such a sorry state and what to do about it).

the current predominant role for the CF is peacekeeping. before you go about saying how that's not right, you should really figure out what "current" or "predominantly" means.

and, i am a CF member, but not that it matters to the discussion at hand


War doesn't solve all of the world's problems. But thinking that everything can be solved without armed force is naive and ignorant.
There are certain realities in the world that the population of the entire Western world find distasteful. So we deny them. This is the most dangerous course of action that we, as a society, could possibly take.

solving things with armed force should always be the last resource. very contrary to your idea of bombing a foreign country simply because one of their companies is biting into bombardier's market for cheap regional airliners


You compare me to Hitler. Congratulations, you're the thousandth person to do so! If I were a website, you'd win a prize.

you should really be embarassed.


There are lines that shouldn't be allowed to bend. If someone enters your territory with a military vessel without your permission, you have been invaded. It doesn't matter if they're your closest allies, it's still an invasion.
The proper response isn't neccessarily to blow their ship up, but you can't just ignore it. Rolling over didn't get Chamberlin anywhere, and it won't get Canada anywhere.

to think that hardening our stance against the americans will benefit us is truly naive

[hubert]

Ok, bully in the schoolyard goes up to three other kids. He has a stick in his hands, and tells all three kids he wants their lunch money. The first one says no, but seeing as he does not have a stick, he gets beat up and loses his money. The second says no, and has a little skinny stick in his hand, the bully takes a little step back, since the kid has what appears to be a way to defend himself, but laughs and beats him up too since the stick is to small to be of any good. The third kid says no as well, but this one has a sturdy and tough (not necessarily huge) stick. The bully steps back and leaves this one alone, because this third kid has a stick to back up what he says and to defend himself from other bullies with sticks. This is a micro example of how the world works. You need a sturdy stick to keep away all the bad guys, because if you can't back up what you say, who's going to take you seriously?

"Go away big bad terrorist, can't we just be friends? Want to hug this tree with me?" Sorry, it don't work that way in the world and we sure aren't in Kansas anymore. It's nice to be friendly to all (I'm a happy person too), but sometimes you and your country gotta pack away that smile and bring out the 'I'm not taking c***' face. And when that time comes, do you want your country to have a little skinny stick or good sturdy stick in its hands?

if only the world was that simple. i'd personally like to see what would happen if paul martin waved the big bad stick that is the CF at george bush, telling him to go screw himself for illegally taxing our soft lumber, for denying our beef, for invading our arctic sovereignty.

of course, by the big bully you might have meant usama bin laden. let's think of it this way, the US has the biggest stick in the world, according to your analogy, did that stop usama?

[wb256]

"Go away big bad terrorist, can't we just be friends? Want to hug this tree with me?" Sorry, it don't work that way in the world and we sure aren't in Kansas anymore. It's nice to be friendly to all (I'm a happy person too), but sometimes you and your country gotta pack away that smile and bring out the 'I'm not taking c***' face. And when that time comes, do you want your country to have a little skinny stick or good sturdy stick in its hands?

Well, I'm glad you understand the workings of the world completely. Maybe I'm wasting my time at university studying human geography, since I can just get you to explain it all to me.

Also, if you can explain to me how a larger military will help prevent terrorism, I'm all ears. However, the world's most expensive military couldn't stop terrorists from destorying it's buildings. The world's most expensive military couldn;t stop terrorists from beheading one of it's citizens.

Let's look for a relationship between military size and terrorist activity. Canada has a tiny military. The last terrorists attack that I know of on Canadian soil was seperatist related (they tried to blow up a flagpole somewhere, and failed). Other than that, the october crisis?

Now, the USA has a HUGE military. They've also had sept 11, the oklahoma city bombings, another attempted attack on the WTO towers earlier, attacks on their embassies, etc. Much of the reasons for these attacks is bitterness over things the USA has done with their really expensive military in the past.

Sorry, I don't think you can convince me that we need a big military to stop global terrorism. You CAN'T stop global terrorism with force. For every single person you've killed, you've created new suicide bombers. When you take away a person's reason for living (their family, their friends, etc) you make them willing to die for a cause. Do you really think so many Palestinians would be willing to blow themselves up if the Israelis didn't retaliate with missles and attack helicopters and bulldozers? They're not all brainwashed religious nuts from the get go. Something has to happen to allow people to be suceptible to that sort of thing. Unless you just believe that Arabs are less intelligant than white people, you have to acknowledge that this culture of violence is making recruiting for terrorist organizations easier (and increases support for terrorists).

I'd also like to add that the world's most expensive military still hasn't even been able to FIND the terrorists that was behind sept 11. The fact that they couldn't stop it was bad enough, but they can't even find the guy afterwards!

Now, since there is no sign of ANY immediate threat to Canada at this point (at least, none that us having a large military would stop) many Canadians (myself included) believe that there are better things to spend our money on (like healthcare, education, childcare services, etc). Having a large military would be great, but right now I'd rather have healthcare services improved.

[piper]

I didn't say big stick, I said strong and sturdy. You don't need a huge military, but you need one that is well equipped and motivated (like the CF), but also fully supported by their country's leadership (which the CF is not). My analogy of the big stick was rather simplified, but I thought it got my point across. Besides, Osama is like the little kid no one likes who sits in the tree and throws rocks at the kids, the sticks can't reach him and he just gets cheeky and throws more rocks. And yes, our country needs more cash into healthcare, education etc (I support this as well), however, do not do it at the expense of our national security. And thats why I do not support the liberals, they have more or less ignored the military (our 'boy scouts' in the words of chretien) and their promises of a new brigade, 5000 more troops etc will be broken the second they are voted back in.

[Earlam]

while none of us really knows the schedules of the coast guard icebreakers or naval frigates for patrolling the northern passes, how can you complain about it? you don't even know when they're there, how can you say anything about them not being there enough?

I don't know the schedule, true.
But I do know that there are other countries claiming chunks of Canada.
This doesn't happen when a country has a military presence in the area.
So, obviously, it's not enough.
(And I was thinking more CF vessels than CCG vessels).


again, the role of the military changes, as with the views of society. ask any canadian, and the first thing that pops in their minds when the topic is the CF is likely to be peacekeeping.

the current predominant role for the CF is peacekeeping. before you go about saying how that's not right, you should really figure out what "current" or "predominantly" means.

and, i am a CF member, but not that it matters to the discussion at hand

The primary role of a military is to kill people. I think I've been over this.
That is what a military is. It is not just another thing they do.
A military doesn't have the ability to kill people. A military is the ability to kill people.

Canadians, in general, live in a fairy-tale world.
Have you talked to some of these people? I'd say over half of them really don't know that bad things happen in the world, and that their society causes a good portion of them.
I've talked to several average Canadians of my age group......
Whenever you explain one or two realities to them, they're instant converts, or they just start spouting off things like "it doesn't affect me".
As a sidenote, I'm a Canadian, born and bred. When I think of the CF, the first thing I think is 'great organization with no support'. Or something about how many compliments are paid to Canadian soldiers by foreigners, yet their own government doesn't give a damn about the organization.
It is most definitely not peacekeeping.

Current: Belonging to present time
Predominant: Most important
(Oh, my capacity for knowledge is mind-boggling, eh?)

Peacekeeping predominant? Most definitely not.
I've been over this point so many times, and I'm not gonna repeat myself. If you want to see my views, check out my last few posts in this thread. If you disagree, great. I'm obviously not going to change your mind with such weak forces as common sense and indisputable fact.

You're a CF member?
I'll revise that statement, as I see the flaw in it.
I wonder if any CF member with operational experience (infanteer, perhaps?) would like to contradict me (I think they still make up the bulk of Canadians on peacekeeping operations).


solving things with armed force should always be the last resource. very contrary to your idea of bombing a foreign country simply because one of their companies is biting into bombardier's market for cheap regional airliners

Armed force should always be the last resort, yes.
But you shouldn't look for every other possible hair-brained idea before even considering it.
Brazil violated a trade agreement, and refused to abide by international rulings. Bombing them is my extreme example. Embargo? Most definitely.


you should really be embarassed.

Why would I be embarrased? It's a badge of honour.
Most Canadians think anybody to the right of Ghandi is a right-wing crackpot.
It's nice to set myself apart in some way, even if it is with the ignorance of others.


to think that hardening our stance against the americans will benefit us is truly naive

I don't think so (obviously).
I'm not reccomending we cut off diplomatic relations or enter a mutual-defence pact with Iran or anything, but we can't do nothing.
We are an independent nation.
We should not be pushed around by every whim of the giant next door.

'Let's do whatever they say, they're bigger' is the most horrible idea on how to run a country that I can imagine. Canada doesn't have to be a satellite.

[offguard96]

Besides, Osama is like the little kid no one likes who sits in the tree and throws rocks at the kids, the sticks can't reach him and he just gets cheeky and throws more rocks.

If the United States hadn't given him rocks and taught him to throw them at Soviets, only to use him and leave him when the USSR fell, maybe he wouldn't have started throwing them in our direction.


The primary role of a military is to kill people. I think I've been over this.
That is what a military is. It is not just another thing they do.
A military doesn't have the ability to kill people. A military is the ability to kill people.

A gun in the hands of a criminal is the ability to kill people. A gun in the hands of a police officer is the ability to protect people. I agree with what you're saying...a military is the ability to kill people, and militaries are there to kill people, but maybe that's too simplistic. Maybe instead of just killing people, conquering, demolishing, etc. our militaries should be there to break up fights.

People will die, yes, but at least it is for something better than lies, oil, or pure power.

The problem with just storming in and "blowing up the baddies" with a big-bad military is that it usually causes more problems than it solves.

[hubert]

I don't know the schedule, true.
But I do know that there are other countries claiming chunks of Canada.
This doesn't happen when a country has a military presence in the area.
So, obviously, it's not enough.
(And I was thinking more CF vessels than CCG vessels).

name them and their claims


The primary role of a military is to kill people. I think I've been over this.

the primary role of a military changes with time. if you must need a diagram for an accurate description of this relationship i admit i am at a loss


Canadians, in general, live in a fairy-tale world.
Have you talked to some of these people? I'd say over half of them really don't know that bad things happen in the world, and that their society causes a good portion of them.
I've talked to several average Canadians of my age group......
Whenever you explain one or two realities to them, they're instant converts, or they just start spouting off things like "it doesn't affect me".
As a sidenote, I'm a Canadian, born and bred. When I think of the CF, the first thing I think is 'great organization with no support'. Or something about how many compliments are paid to Canadian soldiers by foreigners, yet their own government doesn't give a damn about the organization.
It is most definitely not peacekeeping.

you make it sound like you're the only one who lives in canada and knows how everybody feels. contrary to what you claim, not everybody in canada lives in a cave and thinks this country is stuck in a time warp. fighting wars with foreign nations is, at the moment, not the primary objective (hence "currently, the predominant role for the CF is peacekeeping", which leads to our next point)


Current: Belonging to present time
Predominant: Most important

i would imagine that is self explanatory as to why peacekeeping is currently the predominant role of the CF


Peacekeeping predominant? Most definitely not.
I've been over this point so many times, and I'm not gonna repeat myself. If you want to see my views, check out my last few posts in this thread. If you disagree, great. I'm obviously not going to change your mind with such weak forces as common sense and indisputable fact.

again, if you're still stuck with the idea that things will never change in life then this discussion really is pointless


You're a CF member?
I'll revise that statement, as I see the flaw in it.
I wonder if any CF member with operational experience (infanteer, perhaps?) would like to contradict me (I think they still make up the bulk of Canadians on peacekeeping operations).

what do you mean by operational experience? a tour? i'm not infantry, i'm armoured recce, but does it make any difference? i can be service or medic or band for that matter, in any case, you're ideas about the CF are still messed up. trying to degrade non-combat troops is not helping your case either

[Wood]

I


The primary role of a military is to kill people. I think I've been over this.
That is what a military is. It is not just another thing they do.
A military doesn't have the ability to kill people. A military is the ability to kill people.



You're WAY to simplistic, perhaps 60 years ago that was a primary function, but it isn't really the case today is it? How many people has the Canadian Military killed within the last 10 years? And compare that with how many lives they've saved or helped and I think you'll realize the new purpose of the CF. Killing isn't the primary goal of the military its a last resort to protect peace.

That's the new trend all over the world in the past 60 years. or perhaps all the way to WWI to a certain extent. Before having a standing military provoked conflict, war was about out manuvering the other nations and conflict was to be aimed for. Killing was their goal, always on the offensive. But that was before the idea of a total war and before the weapons we have today. Nations no longer want conflict, we saw that in 40 years of cold warfare between the US and the Soviet Union, where both sides built huge militaries but relied on the THREAT to use force rather than actually using it. You also see that in the Gulf in the early 90s, or Korea. Wars are fought against aggressers to return peace, not conquest.

Yes in doing all this they must kill to obtain order, as well as take prisoners and attack supply lines. But peace keeping initiatives last much longer than the actual conflict. Nation building and peacekeeping and humanitarian aid, these are major duties of the CF.

[Lil Lightnin]

The primary role of a military is to kill people.

uhh...


A military is the ability to kill people.

err...


Peacekeeping predominant? Most definitely not.

*scratches head*


You know what? At this moment in time I have absolutely NO response to what you just said. My jaw's hitting the floor buddy.

[Deafinator]

You know what? At this moment in time I have absolutely NO response to what you just said. My jaw's hitting the floor buddy.
Same here, it just like wow...

[piper]

This debate is getting our of hand, and rather rediculous. The CF has weapons, and those weapons are meant to kill. Yes the CF does lots of other duties; peacemaking, peacekeeping, aid to civil power etc etc. There is no such thing as a peacekeeping army (contrary to what the Liberals think). There is only a fully trained and equipped COMBAT military who can be used for a variety of roles; or no military at all. It is a known fact that the best force for peacekeeping is a military that is fully trained in warfighting and is equipped as such.

In Bosnia in 1992, the UN sent in a force that had few armoured vehicles, and what was it, 30 rounds of ammo per person? And what happened, 4 years and numerous atrocities later NATO had to come in with a COMBAT force to bring back order. The Canadians and the French were two of the few UN units to have brought proper combat equipment (meant to kill people, a TOW missile and mortars aren't used to send greeting cards), and they were two of the few units to actually accomplish anything, because they had the stuff to back them up.

For those who remember joining up with the CF, do you remember the declaration you had to make at your interview? (I had mine at my interview anyways). The one that asked you if you had anything wrong with having to bear arms for the purpose of injuring and/or killing other persons and enemies? There. That clears up what a military is for RIGHT THERE. No more arguing. The CF is not a police force (why do you think hostage rescue teams are often police and not military, police are trained to use force as a last resort, the military is trained to use it from the outset), nor is at Boy Scouts, or the Red Cross, or Amnesty International, or a giant SAR team. Go to the DND website. The PRIMARY role of the CF is to defend Canada and its soverignty, everything else is seconday to that task.

[Ching]

The PRIMARY role of the CF is to defend Canada and its soverignty, everything else is seconday to that task.
And... uh... when was the last time we had to do that? 50 years ago? 60, if you don't count Korea as a threat to our sovereignty? Afghanistan certainly wasn't a threat to our sovereignty.

So, for the last 50 years, the primary role of the CF has been peacekeeping, because our sovereignty wasn't being threatened.

[hubert]

This debate is getting our of hand, and rather rediculous. The CF has weapons, and those weapons are meant to kill. Yes the CF does lots of other duties; peacemaking, peacekeeping, aid to civil power etc etc. There is no such thing as a peacekeeping army (contrary to what the Liberals think). There is only a fully trained and equipped COMBAT military who can be used for a variety of roles; or no military at all. It is a known fact that the best force for peacekeeping is a military that is fully trained in warfighting and is equipped as such.

In Bosnia in 1992, the UN sent in a force that had few armoured vehicles, and what was it, 30 rounds of ammo per person? And what happened, 4 years and numerous atrocities later NATO had to come in with a COMBAT force to bring back order. The Canadians and the French were two of the few UN units to have brought proper combat equipment (meant to kill people, a TOW missile and mortars aren't used to send greeting cards), and they were two of the few units to actually accomplish anything, because they had the stuff to back them up.

For those who remember joining up with the CF, do you remember the declaration you had to make at your interview? (I had mine at my interview anyways). The one that asked you if you had anything wrong with having to bear arms for the purpose of injuring and/or killing other persons and enemies? There. That clears up what a military is for RIGHT THERE. No more arguing. The CF is not a police force (why do you think hostage rescue teams are often police and not military, police are trained to use force as a last resort, the military is trained to use it from the outset), nor is at Boy Scouts, or the Red Cross, or Amnesty International, or a giant SAR team. Go to the DND website. The PRIMARY role of the CF is to defend Canada and its soverignty, everything else is seconday to that task.

hmm,

well, you have an unfinished sentence there, since they assume you'd have the common sense to complete that declaration with respect to the social trends of today's canadian society

let me fill it in for you

currently, we bear arms for the purpose of injuring/killing...in the name of of peacekeeping

[Lil Lightnin]

And... uh... when was the last time we had to do that? 50 years ago?

I'd say daily actually. You don't need to be in a combat zone in order to defend Canadian Sovereignty. Every day the CF runs patrols of parts of our country. They're protecting Canada this way too. I agree with piper when he said that this was their primary goal, but that definitely doesn't mean you need to go and pick up a rifle and start unloading on people to protect Canada. :rolleyes:

[piper]

I'd say daily actually. You don't need to be in a combat zone in order to defend Canadian Sovereignty. Every day the CF runs patrols of parts of our country. They're protecting Canada this way too. I agree with piper when he said that this was their primary goal, but that definitely doesn't mean you need to go and pick up a rifle and start unloading on people to protect Canada. :rolleyes:

Didn't say that, I realise that we haven't gone to war for...oh wait...wasn't it just two years ago we had troops in Afghanistan as part of Enduring Freedom? I want to dispell the dangerous idea that the CF is just a force that goes into nice safe places to give out food and little flags (yes, its very a very prevalent attitude). They do not, and whenever casualties are suffered, people make a great hoo-haa, or when we have to fight, people make a great hoo-haa. It took years and years for the gov't (Liberal...coincidence?) to even acknowledge the battle at the Medak Pocket, in which Canadians fought a larger Croatian force. And beat them off. It's almost as if a Canadian shoots a bullet under fire, the gov't is so scared that people will discover that we are ...gasp....a combat military and will so crush the airr-fairy notion that the world is a nice place.

But whatever, obviously my point isn't getting across. I'll stop trying to dispell people's views on our CF. I thought cadets would at least be aware of the real story. Obviously not. I'm disappointed, and a little worried.

[piper]

what do you mean by operational experience? a tour? i'm not infantry, i'm armoured recce, but does it make any difference? i can be service or medic or band for that matter, in any case, you're ideas about the CF are still messed up. trying to degrade none-combat troops is not helping your case either

What unit are you in? Just curious.

[Earlam]

This debate is getting our of hand, and rather rediculous. The CF has weapons, and those weapons are meant to kill. Yes the CF does lots of other duties; peacemaking, peacekeeping, aid to civil power etc etc. There is no such thing as a peacekeeping army (contrary to what the Liberals think). There is only a fully trained and equipped COMBAT military who can be used for a variety of roles; or no military at all. It is a known fact that the best force for peacekeeping is a military that is fully trained in warfighting and is equipped as such.

In Bosnia in 1992, the UN sent in a force that had few armoured vehicles, and what was it, 30 rounds of ammo per person? And what happened, 4 years and numerous atrocities later NATO had to come in with a COMBAT force to bring back order. The Canadians and the French were two of the few UN units to have brought proper combat equipment (meant to kill people, a TOW missile and mortars aren't used to send greeting cards), and they were two of the few units to actually accomplish anything, because they had the stuff to back them up.

For those who remember joining up with the CF, do you remember the declaration you had to make at your interview? (I had mine at my interview anyways). The one that asked you if you had anything wrong with having to bear arms for the purpose of injuring and/or killing other persons and enemies? There. That clears up what a military is for RIGHT THERE. No more arguing. The CF is not a police force (why do you think hostage rescue teams are often police and not military, police are trained to use force as a last resort, the military is trained to use it from the outset), nor is at Boy Scouts, or the Red Cross, or Amnesty International, or a giant SAR team. Go to the DND website. The PRIMARY role of the CF is to defend Canada and its soverignty, everything else is seconday to that task.

I'll go with that.
It just about sums up what I've been trying to say.

With the arguing I got a little contrary, and perhaps went a wee bit too far on a couple of things. But my main points still stand, if not the wording and examples I used to express them.
And by 'wee bit', I actually (for I think the first time) mean 'wee bit'.

I don't know how to argue the point of what a military is or does. It just baffles me that there could be any difference of opinion. There is something that has been acknowledged as fact for tens of thousands of years, and it is, in this thread, being treated like an opinion.

I'm sure I'll be arguing the point in some other thread within the week, but for now, you've run me out. Unless I find a post in here that is just too provocative to not respond to..... again.
(Looking at hubert......)

And to Hu's last point, which I don't think I can leave alone.
I don't feel that I'm degrading CF personnel of any kind, non-combat or otherwise. I know as well as anyone that they're essential to the modern military.
However, I think you'd be more likely to see it my way if you were typing from, say, Afghanistan, where there are people shooting at you, than you would if you were a newly recruited logistics clerk in Toronto.
Sorry for the edit, I just couldn't let that one go.....

[hubert]

I'll go with that.
It just about sums up what I've been trying to say.

With the arguing I got a little contrary, and perhaps went a wee bit too far on a couple of things. But my main points still stand, if not the wording and examples I used to express them.
And by 'wee bit', I actually (for I think the first time) mean 'wee bit'.

I don't know how to argue the point of what a military is or does. It just baffles me that there could be any difference of opinion. There is something that has been acknowledged as fact for tens of thousands of years, and it is, in this thread, being treated like an opinion.

I'm sure I'll be arguing the point in some other thread within the week, but for now, you've run me out. Unless I find a post in here that is just too provocative to not respond to..... again.
(Looking at hubert......)

And to Hu's last point, which I don't think I can leave alone.
I don't feel that I'm degrading CF personnel of any kind, non-combat or otherwise. I know as well as anyone that they're essential to the modern military.
However, I think you'd be more likely to see it my way if you were typing from, say, Afghanistan, where there are people shooting at you, than you would if you were a newly recruited logistics clerk in Toronto.
Sorry for the edit, I just couldn't let that one go.....

you're still not getting the point. the military is there for a single purpose, to serve as the last resort in protecting a country's interests. today, canada's interests are different from that of the romans 2,000 years ago, today the focus is on peacekeeping. we're in afghanistan to preserve the peace, we're in bosnia, and we were in cyprus doing the same things. sometimes the locals don't see it our way and think, just like you do, that our military is there to kill them. so they get themselves all worked up and start attacking our troops. in a time like that, our expertise as soldiers come in, and we defend ourselves with the usual canadian rigor. we didn't go to iraq because it wasn't a peacekeeping mission

you're not coming back to this thread? coincidentally, you never answered my question. you claimed that other countries are claiming "chunks" of canada, i asked you to name them and their claims. and now you're playing the disappearing act? don't do that

as for the non-combat personnel not knowing what the "real" canadian military is about, i'd say you're still playing the same game of downgrading those rear echelon troops, paraphrasing the same idea, that support troops are lesser soldiers. you got this thing in your head about the military that i'm afraid is going in the wrong direction

i think you'd be more likely to see it my way if you were typing from, say, an armoury in toronto, where there are people who are actually in the military, wearing the real cadpats with the canadian flag on the shoulder, than you would if you were typing from the comforts of your own home, attending the weekly cadet parade, yelling at little 12 yr olds with your three little chevrons and fashioning yourself some sort of expert on the sentiments of real soldiers

again, no hard feelings

[hubert]

What unit are you in? Just curious.
25 service, no wait, 7th toronto band, no wait, 25 medic

one of the support units, you'd hoped

[Lil Lightnin]

Although I'm hardly qualified to speak on there behalf...I'd imagine if you asked a member of the CF what their job entails, or what they're looking forward to doing that day when they wake up, I'm fairly confident "killing people" would not be the answer.

I could be wrong...

[Earlam]

you're still not getting the point. the military is there for a single purpose, to serve as the last resort in protecting a country's interests. today, canada's interests are different from that of the romans 2,000 years ago, today the focus is on peacekeeping. we're in afghanistan to preserve the peace, we're in bosnia, and we were in cyprus doing the same things. sometimes the locals don't see it our way and think, just like you do, that our military is there to kill them. so they get themselves all worked up and start attacking our troops. in a time like that, our expertise as soldiers come in, and we defend ourselves with the usual canadian rigor. we didn't go to iraq because it wasn't a peacekeeping mission

you're not coming back to this thread? coincidentally, you never answered my question. you claimed that other countries are claiming "chunks" of canada, i asked you to name them and their claims. and now you're playing the disappearing act? don't do that

as for the non-combat personnel not knowing what the "real" canadian military is about, i'd say you're still playing the same game of downgrading those rear echelon troops, paraphrasing the same idea, that support troops are lesser soldiers. you got this thing in your head about the military that i'm afraid is going in the wrong direction

i think you'd be more likely to see it my way if you were typing from, say, an armoury in toronto, where there are people who are actually in the military, wearing the real cadpats with the canadian flag on the shoulder, than you would if you were typing from the comforts of your own home, attending the weekly cadet parade, yelling at little 12 yr olds with your three little chevrons and fashioning yourself some sort of expert on the sentiments of real soldiers

again, no hard feelings

The military is only a last resort when used that way. Its purpose isn't 'last resort'. Its purpose is to do what the government tells it, and to defend the country.

The focus is on peacekeeping. Yes, it is an important role of our forces.
But again, it is most definitely not the purpose of the CF.
Just because killing is a military's main role doesn't mean anybody in the military is an unstoppable killing machine bent on causing as much damage as possible. I honestly don't know where you get some of this stuff, but alright.....
I disagree with your idea of why we didn't go to Iraq.
It could be simplified down to your statement, but it'd take alot of stretching.

I'm back, as you have shown me the error of my ways. This will, perhaps, be my last post in the thread.......
Hans Island - Denmark thinks it's theirs.
Our waters after 12 mi. The US doesn't recognize our claims, and refers to the other (a hundred and something miles, I think...... I'm not sure of the exact number) as international waters. And they're not the only ones.

When using quotation marks in response to a post, please, at least try to do so accurately..... I'm sure I've used the word "real" on these forums several times, but not in that context at all.
Who here has said support troops are "lesser soldiers" (example of proper use of quotation marks)?
Certainly not myself. In fact, I think I've voiced the exact opposite opinion.
If a soldier in my nation's forces doesn't accept that his role is to defend me and the rest of the country, I am very, very frightened. I hope something changes your mind soon, because this is a very disturbing example of why Canada is having problems.

I'll make a couple of corrections on my own situation, since you seem so interested in my personal life.
i) My home ain't particularly comfortable. Kind of crappy, actually.
ii) I don't yell.
iii) "Three little chevrons"? I believe the proper response to this is, "screw you". I don't think I'm gonna bother responding to this in full, as the comment speaks for itself.
iv) I'm using common sense, useful tidbits of info provided by "real soldiers", and my own ability to figure that two and two makes four.

No hard feelings.
I'll type my fascist views in your general direction pretty soon, I think.
(And no, I'm not a fascist. Although I do remember somebody calling me one earlier in the thread....... no hard feelings.)

And Lil Lightning.......
That is not what I've been saying at all.
I've been trying to cut through the sugar-coated-peacekeepers-that-haven't-fired-a-bullet-since-WW2 idea of the CF. It's been taken completely the wrong way, and my actual point was debated very little.
It may not be their ambition to kill people when they go to work every day, but I expect a good portion of them to be completely willing to do so. Preferably all, but that may not be possible in today's society.

[hubert]

The military is only a last resort when used that way. Its purpose isn't 'last resort'. Its purpose is to do what the government tells it, and to defend the country.

The focus is on peacekeeping. Yes, it is an important role of our forces.
But again, it is most definitely not the purpose of the CF.
Just because killing is a military's main role doesn't mean anybody in the military is an unstoppable killing machine bent on causing as much damage as possible. I honestly don't know where you get some of this stuff, but alright.....
I disagree with your idea of why we didn't go to Iraq.
It could be simplified down to your statement, but it'd take alot of stretching.

things change with time. purposes are not carved in stone. if you can't understand that fact, then there's no point in this discussion.


I'm back, as you have shown me the error of my ways. This will, perhaps, be my last post in the thread.......
Hans Island - Denmark thinks it's theirs.
Our waters after 12 mi. The US doesn't recognize our claims, and refers to the other (a hundred and something miles, I think...... I'm not sure of the exact number) as international waters. And they're not the only ones.

12 nautical miles from shore is the boundary of territorial sea, beyond that is international waters

demark thinks a lot of things, so do a lot of other countries, who cares. they're not about to launch an amphibious landing on hans island


When using quotation marks in response to a post, please, at least try to do so accurately..... I'm sure I've used the word "real" on these forums several times, but not in that context at all.
Who here has said support troops are "lesser soldiers" (example of proper use of quotation marks)?
Certainly not myself. In fact, I think I've voiced the exact opposite opinion.
If a soldier in my nation's forces doesn't accept that his role is to defend me and the rest of the country, I am very, very frightened. I hope something changes your mind soon, because this is a very disturbing example of why Canada is having problems.

there are two parts to this response

1 you obviously believe that only troops with "operational experience, like infanteers" can speak on behalf of the military. inversely, that means support troops, those who aren't in the field, can not. your explanation? in paraphrase, i didn't say that they're lesser soldiers but they still don't know what they're talking about since they've never been shot at.

2 you claim that i have stated that my role is not to defend you and the rest of this country. that's interesting, because that's not what i said


I'll make a couple of corrections on my own situation, since you seem so interested in my personal life.
i) My home ain't particularly comfortable. Kind of crappy, actually.
ii) I don't yell.
iii) "Three little chevrons"? I believe the proper response to this is, "screw you". I don't think I'm gonna bother responding to this in full, as the comment speaks for itself.
iv) I'm using common sense, useful tidbits of info provided by "real soldiers", and my own ability to figure that two and two makes four.

i don't know you, and i don't care about your personal life. your home is far more of a comfort compare to the trenches, hoochies, and ditches that all soldiers, regardless of trade, sleep in in the field. you say you don't yell at cadets, and we all know that's bull. you'd probably come with some new definition of "yelling" to defend your claim. your three chevrons are credentials to your achievements in cadets. needless to say you're proud of them, you should be, you earned them. but the honest truth is that the length of effort you put forth to earn them are little compared to the length of effort you'd have to put forth to earn them in the military. in that light, "little" seems a rather appropriate description.

[hubert]

That is not what I've been saying at all.
I've been trying to cut through the sugar-coated-peacekeepers-that-haven't-fired-a-bullet-since-WW2 idea of the CF. It's been taken completely the wrong way, and my actual point was debated very little.
It may not be their ambition to kill people when they go to work every day, but I expect a good portion of them to be completely willing to do so. Preferably all, but that may not be possible in today's society.

look, if we're getting shot at, we'll kill the @ssmuncher who's shooting at us. but if you want us to bomb his country while we're at it, it's not gonna happen

if you're still not happy with that and thinks canada is too soft, i recommend you join the US army

[Earlam]

things change with time. purposes are not carved in stone. if you can't understand that fact, then there's no point in this discussion.

12 nautical miles from shore is the boundary of territorial sea, beyond that is international waters

demark thinks a lot of things, so do a lot of other countries, who cares. they're not about to launch an amphibious landing on hans island

there are two parts to this response

1 you obviously believe that only troops with "operational experience, like infanteers" can speak on behalf of the military. inversely, that means support troops, those who aren't in the field, can not. your explanation? in paraphrase, i didn't say that they're lesser soldiers but they still don't know what they're talking about since they've never been shot at.

2 you claim that i have stated that my role is not to defend you and the rest of this country. that's interesting, because that's not what i said

i don't know you, and i don't care about your personal life. your home is far more of a comfort compare to the trenches, hoochies, and ditches that all soldiers, regardless of trade, sleep in in the field. you say you don't yell at cadets, and we all know that's bull. you'd probably come with some new definition of "yelling" to defend your claim. your three chevrons are credentials to your achievements in cadets. needless to say you're proud of them, you should be, you earned them. but the honest truth is that the length of effort you put forth to earn them are little compared to the length of effort you'd have to put forth to earn them in the military. in that light, "little" seems a rather appropriate description.

In this post is why our debate has hit a brick wall.
So I won't be arguing any of your points, as we seem to disagree on the fundamental issues on which our opinions are based.

As a sidenote, I don't think I've belittled any CF personnel in any of my posts. If you or anyone else wants to be insulted, go for it. I'm certainly not going to stop you.
And I really don't yell. Much as I'd like to. You both implied that I was in cadets for the power to yell at little kids and that I was lying.
Now it's my turn to take something you've said as a personal insult (you seem to have taken offence to some of my statements, but in your post, it seemed to be the intent).

This post exists because I have yet to learn how to let something alone.
I'll be working on that in the future.

[piper]

Thank you Captain Obvious (hubert). The reason its so easy to get promoted in cadets is because you are in for only 7 years (12-19) as opposed to 49 possible years (16-65(am i correct?)) in the CF. This discussion is getting rediculous. The same ideas are getting presented in different ways, same idea, different form. And now we leave this idea alone.

[Wood]

The reason its so easy to get promoted in cadets is because you are in for only 7 years (12-19) as opposed to 49 possible years (16-65(am i correct?))

No.

Anyways, onto more relevant news in a proliberal thread. Today I got a phone call from Tony Clement... it was automated. And I was quite busy at the moment so I didn't need to be interrupted by something so worthless. Hmmm, so now he's definately not getting my support. If he wants to speak then do it on the radio, or on the television and I'll come to you. Or call me in person and we'll chat, but I hate automated telephone SPAM.

[Lil Lightnin]

Don't give us the correct answer too quickly then...

[Ching]

Don't give us the correct answer too quickly then...
bahahahah!


Mike, did you ever know that you're my hero?

[The Blue Tory]

I am wondering is it common Liberal practice to go around the streets of ridings taking down opponent's signs, and occasionally replacing an opponents sign with one of theirs? Or is this just a Parrish thing?

[Lola]

Good news(Lib/NDP), folks! I saw the Globe yesterday, and it said that Conservative support has dropped about 6%!
:)

[hubert]

In this post is why our debate has hit a brick wall.
So I won't be arguing any of your points, as we seem to disagree on the fundamental issues on which our opinions are based.

As a sidenote, I don't think I've belittled any CF personnel in any of my posts. If you or anyone else wants to be insulted, go for it. I'm certainly not going to stop you.
And I really don't yell. Much as I'd like to. You both implied that I was in cadets for the power to yell at little kids and that I was lying.
Now it's my turn to take something you've said as a personal insult (you seem to have taken offence to some of my statements, but in your post, it seemed to be the intent).

This post exists because I have yet to learn how to let something alone.
I'll be working on that in the future.

i hope you're not taking this personally, i certainly did not mean it that way. surely i hope you did not either, but then only you'd know. in the best case hopefully we both learned something from this, if not on agreeing on something.

again, no hard feelings. despite our different political orientations, in the end we're all on the same team

[The Blue Tory]

I am wondering is it common Liberal practice to go around the streets of ridings taking down opponent's signs, and occasionally replacing an opponents sign with one of theirs? Or is this just a Parrish thing?
so is it policy or not?

[gunzgirl85]

Good news(Lib/NDP), folks! I saw the Globe yesterday, and it said that Conservative support has dropped about 6%!
:)
WOOOHOOO
im so excited, and i just can't hide it! :D

[wb256]

so is it policy or not?


No, clearly one misguided individual did something stupid. I've seen conservatives destroy numerous liberal signs around here.

It's pretty immature to blame this on every liberal. Grow up a little eh?

[piper]

so is it policy or not?

Maybye they're getting desperate :rolleyes:
I compare the liberals to the spoiled little kid, they're happy when they run thigns but when they're power is threatened...temper tantrum.


No.

Your genius amazes me. Why, your explanation of it makes SOOOOO much more sense then mine. Please forgive for wasting your most valuable time in having to write such an extensive explanation, oh master of wisdom.

[Ching]

Maybye they're getting desperate :rolleyes:
I compare the liberals to the spoiled little kid, they're happy when they run thigns but when they're power is threatened...temper tantrum.
I highly doubt that it's Liberal candidates that are going around wrecking signs... or even Liberal party members. Probably just someone who doesn't like Conservatives. There are a few around, you know.




Your genius amazes me. Why, your explanation of it makes SOOOOO much more sense then mine. Please forgive for wasting your most valuable time in having to write such an extensive explanation, oh master of wisdom.
Was all this really necessary? :rolleyes:

[piper]

I highly doubt that it's Liberal candidates that are going around wrecking signs... or even Liberal party members. Probably just someone who doesn't like Conservatives. There are a few around, you know.

Well....you know those Liberals. :rolleyes: I was joking, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't sink THAT low.


Was all this really necessary? :rolleyes:

Yes. I like being sarcastic.

[Wood]

Your genius amazes me. Why, your explanation of it makes SOOOOO much more sense then mine. Please forgive for wasting your most valuable time in having to write such an extensive explanation, oh master of wisdom.

Ok, the retirement age for the CF is not 65. Any more discussion why don't you do that in the thread marked conservative? If you have a yearning to propogate then why not do it there. How is it possible for the rest of us to have anything resembling intellegent conversation, when you fill the thread with whining about some random person tearing down some signs. Considering the conservative thread was the original and your the ones who have asked the liberals not to fill it talking about the racism of the alliance party I thought the same curtesies could be offered.

So here's a question to stimulate something on topic:

What do you think the most important left wing issue of this election (to you personally).

Trying to be proactive I'd say the environment. Technology has given us some pretty good options to gasoline and nuclear power, however in order to use them we need to invest in some infastructure. Once in place it'll make a huge difference to our future.

[Coriel]

wow, this will be a neat place to post once i'm at home on the computer (i just finished a biology 12 exam so i'm still at school)
i just have one thing to say...VOTE NDP! lol
i'll be back sometime later.

[piper]

Ok, the retirement age for the CF is not 65. Any more discussion why don't you do that in the thread marked conservative? If you have a yearning to propogate then why not do it there. How is it possible for the rest of us to have anything resembling intellegent conversation, when you fill the thread with whining about some random person tearing down some signs. Considering the conservative thread was the original and your the ones who have asked the liberals not to fill it talking about the racism of the alliance party I thought the same curtesies could be offered.

So here's a question to stimulate something on topic:

What do you think the most important left wing issue of this election (to you personally).

Trying to be proactive I'd say the environment. Technology has given us some pretty good options to gasoline and nuclear power, however in order to use them we need to invest in some infastructure. Once in place it'll make a huge difference to our future.

Right. The retierment age is 60, my bad. Can you accept my apology oh master of wisdom? And...

I didn't whine about signs, I actually made a joke about it.

What racsim? What about the high and lofty ideals of taking MY hard earned money to help other people I don't even know with no strings attached (among other things) of the NDP that will ultimatly lead this country to ruin, or the blatent arrogance, lies and deciet of the Liberals?

And thats your fault for not posting in the Conservative thread. I post here, so you can post there. Not doing so is your own faults, so don't whine about it.

[The Blue Tory]

I highly doubt that it's Liberal candidates that are going around wrecking signs... or even Liberal party members. Probably just someone who doesn't like Conservatives. There are a few around, you know.


Yes that's it, everyone who doesn't like the CPC just so happens to have a Liberal sign on them... {!} BAH!

[piper]

i just have one thing to say...VOTE NDP!

Can you give me 5 reasons why we should do that?

[TBird]

Can you give me 5 reasons why we should do that?

I bet s/he can. Having personal opinions is an amazing thing. I'm voting NDP provincially, and would vote Liberal if I could actually vote.

5 reasons for BC NDP
- I hate Gordon Campbell
- I hate Gordon Campbell
- I hate Gordon Campbell
- I hate Gordon Campbell
- I hate Gordon Campbell

5 reasons for the Federal Liberals
- I hate everything about the CPC with the excpetion of debt (* this isn't an open statement for people to come and say "so you don't support a balanced budget? :rolleyes: *)
- I support Liberal health care changes; yes Paul Martin slashed the Health budget but having a first world country involves fiscal responcibility. IU'm betting the US won't be in great shape long term
- Stephan harper scares me
- The NDP lacks expierence to lead the Nation
- The Liberals have, generally, done a good job. (And yes, I do read the news...)

[Wood]

Right. The retierment age is 60, my bad. Can you accept my apology oh master of wisdom? And...


For now. :D

[piper]

I bet s/he can. Having personal opinions is an amazing thing. I'm voting NDP provincially, and would vote Liberal if I could actually vote.

5 reasons for BC NDP
- I hate Gordon Campbell
- I hate Gordon Campbell
- I hate Gordon Campbell
- I hate Gordon Campbell
- I hate Gordon Campbell



Those are the reasons of an immature voter, not an informed one. Therefore, they are bad reasons. You vote for a party because of their policies, not personal opinions of the leader. SO please, if your going to vote like that, don't vote.



5 reasons for the Federal Liberals
- I hate everything about the CPC with the excpetion of debt (* this isn't an open statement for people to come and say "so you don't support a balanced budget? :rolleyes: *)
- I support Liberal health care changes; yes Paul Martin slashed the Health budget but having a first world country involves fiscal responcibility. IU'm betting the US won't be in great shape long term
- Stephan harper scares me
- The NDP lacks expierence to lead the Nation
- The Liberals have, generally, done a good job. (And yes, I do read the news...)

WHy does Stephan Harper scare you? Know who scares me, Paul Martin. Because he is way out of his depth in his current position. He is NOT a leader. He is a follower, anyone can tell that. Harper and (gasp) Jack Layton both strike me as leaders, but Martin does not. Not even close. Also, the CPC's policies are close to those of the Liberals, when you really look at it. Except for defence (CPC actually takes an interest in it), Health Care (private clinics ARE a good idea in conjunction with a strong public health system) and International Relations (Canada, taking its place in the world, wow).

[gunzgirl85]

WHy does Stephan Harper scare you? Know who scares me, Paul Martin. Because he is way out of his depth in his current position. He is NOT a leader. He is a follower, anyone can tell that. Harper and (gasp) Jack Layton both strike me as leaders, but Martin does not. Not even close. Also, the CPC's policies are close to those of the Liberals, when you really look at it. Except for defence (CPC actually takes an interest in it), Health Care (private clinics ARE a good idea in conjunction with a strong public health system) and International Relations (Canada, taking its place in the world, wow).

Stephen Harper scares me because of all his policies and tactics!
he should just move to the states, i think he would be content there.. :D

[wb256]

WHy does Stephan Harper scare you? Know who scares me, Paul Martin. Because he is way out of his depth in his current position. He is NOT a leader. He is a follower, anyone can tell that. Harper and (gasp) Jack Layton both strike me as leaders, but Martin does not. Not even close. Also, the CPC's policies are close to those of the Liberals, when you really look at it. Except for defence (CPC actually takes an interest in it), Health Care (private clinics ARE a good idea in conjunction with a strong public health system) and International Relations (Canada, taking its place in the world, wow).

There are some key differences between their policies, and between the way both parties would likely deal with situations once in power. The war on terrorism for example. Playing a larger role in this battle would not be "Canada taking it's place in the world" in my mind. It would be Canada joining into a war that can never be won, wasting money and human life and eventually encouraging these terrorist attacks to take place on Canadian soil.

How exactly are private clinics a good idea?

As for defence, that ties into my first point. Our current global situation dosn't justify having a large military. A large military is 100% USELESS against the current enemy. The country with one of the world's most expensive militaries experienced one of the most savage attacks against civilians ever, and their civilians are repeatedly being slaughtered all across the globe. By contrast, we've been pretty safe in Canada.

Therefore, a new method needs to be found to find this terrorist problem, other than military force. That being said, we'd might as well spend the money on healthcare until we can find a better terrorist fighting stradegy (staying out of their buisness just MIGHT be a good way to achieve this).

[Feeloo]

Can you give me 5 reasons why we should do that?

I can.

1-More social housing units
2-No participation in the Star War program
3-Equal rights for everybody
4-A strong leader
5-NDP's approach on defence

And these are good enough for me.


Those are the reasons of an immature voter, not an informed one. Therefore, they are bad reasons. You vote for a party because of their policies, not personal opinions of the leader. SO please, if your going to vote like that, don't vote.

Because you think CPC voters know why they'll vote for Harper? I'd say the VAST majority of them are going to vote to punish the Liberals, not because they agree with a right-wing program that will only make Canada a little more like the US.

An immature voter? No, rather the common man. And they're good enough reasons, just like yours. It's a personal choice, you're no one to tell him not to vote.

If you're going to vote CPC, you can also forget June 28th, since you will only contribuate to a disaster in election a Harper government.

[piper]

I can.

1-More social housing units
2-No participation in the Star War program
3-Equal rights for everybody
4-A strong leader
5-NDP's approach on defence

And these are good enough for me.



Because you think CPC voters know why they'll vote for Harper? I'd say the VAST majority of them are going to vote to punish the Liberals, not because they agree with a right-wing program that will only make Canada a little more like the US.

An immature voter? No, rather the common man. And they're good enough reasons, just like yours. It's a personal choice, you're no one to tell him not to vote.

If you're going to vote CPC, you can also forget June 28th, since you will only contribuate to a disaster in election a Harper government.

I say better the Conservatives then the Liberals. The LIberals have been in power to long, and need to get out before they go totally corrupt, they're almost there already. We know how and when the Liberals are going to screw us. What we don't know is how the Conservatives might, because they won't. They will want to get reelected, so they won't do anything dumb. Thats why you need a now gov't every 10 years or so, any longer, the party will think they can never be kicked out. But whatever, the election is ina few days. Vote the Liberals back in, well, look what already happened. Vote in the NDP, well, there goes your hard earned cash to some unemployed guy you don't know. Vote Conservative, you might actually see this country take a turn for the better.

Oh, and we already have equal rights in this country. And the NDP does not even have a position on defence. They seem to think that being defenceless is goodand will make this a better place to live.

[Feeloo]

Oh, and we already have equal rights in this country. And the NDP does not even have a position on defence. They seem to think that being defenceless is goodand will make this a better place to live.


No we don't. Why do you think homosexuals have to go to court to have their rights recognized?

And no defence policy? Peacekeeping is good enough for me.

Anyways, I voted for the NDP, and I don't care if a part of my income can help the unemployed guy, because one day he might as well pay for my unemployment benefits if something goes wrong. Plus, it's not like my vote is going to change anything to the final outcome of the elections in this riding, it's BLUE (As in Bloc blue).

[wb256]

Those are the reasons of an immature voter, not an informed one. Therefore, they are bad reasons. You vote for a party because of their policies, not personal opinions of the leader. SO please, if your going to vote like that, don't vote.

...and then we read...


I say better the Conservatives then the Liberals. The LIberals have been in power to long, and need to get out before they go totally corrupt, they're almost there already.

Well, those statements seem to contradict themselves JUST a little. It's the same reason everyone I know voting conservative has given me, they don't want the corrupt liberals in power anymore.

Now, this has nothing to do with the conservative party's principles/platform.

Despite the fact that the Liberals MAY be corrupt (the sponsorship scandel hearings arn't even done, so we don't know who's responsible yet...so there's no solid connection to Paul Martin or his new Liberals yet) I'd still rather them and their policies than the Conservatives.

As a final note, everyone has different reasons for voting for different people. I don't see how you can call someone immature because they have a different outlook on life than you do. It's called culture; people think and do things in different ways. You can't equate human actions to logic and reason (the positivist approach to social science) because so much of it is completely illogical.

Your own lifestyle in your taken for granted world (everyday life) can illistrate this very well. Fashion is a big part of culture. Do you choose your clothing completely on logic alone (what's the warmest, etc) or do you illogically follow fashion in some way (looking for good looking clothes, etc)?

The same goes for music; why on earth do we listen to it? What sort of logical purpose does it serve?

My point is that these illogical aspects of human culture will in many cases extend to economic and political opinions. Someone who votes for whether or not they like their leader likely has different values than you do. Similarly you (being a right-wing type of person) may not be able to understand a leftist's point of view, but they live in a different world than you do and vlue different things in life than you do. (note: every human lives in a completely different world than every other human, we're all individuals).

My personal reasoning for supporting leftist economics is that it promotes economic and political equality. This is not simply a moral incentive ("let's all hold hands and be friends"), although personal morals do play a role in my beliefs. My leftist ideals primarily come from social science issues involving ethnic conflict.

Many ethnic conflicts can be explained as a result of economic and political inequalities, rather than just simple illogical hatred for those who are different.

If you look at the situation involving Quebec seperatism (a very non-violent example of ethnic/nationalist tensions) you'll see my point. There has been more than just language that has seperated ontario and quebec, there's years of political and economic inequality (or at least, percieved inequalities). This is really clear from the attitudes of quebecois from the 60's onwards. From this later sprang a drive to assert themselves as different from the english, and to be on their own.

On the opposite of this is Scotland, where there's different dialects spoken but everyone is still scottish.

Another example (and a far more violent one) is present in the balkans. The easiest example there (since there's so many ethnic clashes I could go on forever) involves the Serbs and the Bosnians. Bosnians (during the genocide) were associated with the Turks (the ex corrupt rulers of yugoslavia) despite the fact that they were clearly not turkish, and never in power. They simply converted to Islam during the occupation. Still, the hatred was fueled by association with economic/political inequalities.

Wow, that was long and off topic. Anyways, my point was to show that different people believe and do different things for different reasons.

Don't be so quick to judge, because there are (more often than not) reasons for people's beliefs/actions which you may not know or understand beyond the simple "everyone who believes something different than me is an immature idiot".

[Wood]

Those are the reasons of an immature voter, not an informed one. Therefore, they are bad reasons. You vote for a party because of their policies, not personal opinions of the leader. SO please, if your going to vote like that, don't vote.


You know what, you have absolutely no right to tell a person that they may not voice their opinions through utalizing their vote. If you don't even understand that then who do you think you are to lecture someone on the principals of democracy.

[piper]

You know what, you have absolutely no right to tell a person that they may not voice their opinions through utalizing their vote. If you don't even understand that then who do you think you are to lecture someone on the principals of democracy.

Yes I can. I just did. And I'll do it again, and again. I am now very anti-Liberal due to some material I have read this past weekend (from an impartial point of view) and if you look back, they killed just about everything that could have kept us a world power. From Trudeau on, the Liberal party (and to a limited extent Mulroney and his Conservatives at the time) ruined this country. We went from a player on the world stage, to the annoying little kid who tries to be cool by ******* on the rug of the our most important ally (the US). Sorry guys, but the Liberals took Canada, ripped it, twisted it and flushed it down the toilet (in my opinion and from my viewpoint). We are a welfare state that appeals to any beeding heart with a lobby group instead of appealing to the good of Canada.

[Ching]

You seem to be a fan of the "bleeding heart" term. A term made very famous by a very famous Liberal... *conspiracy theory!!!!*
Anyway... you go on and on about how the Liberals have ruined Canada... HOW have they ruined Canada? It seems to be doing quite well, by comparison to other countries, including the US, if you look at individual standards of life and whatnot. By and large, I'd say that we have a great country going here. And heck. The Liberals have had many a balanced budget! How many billions was the deficit the last Conservative government left the Liberals with? Somebody refresh my memory here... It was bad enough to leave the former with only two (2) seats in the House of Commons. That's TWO. Deux. Dos. THAT's what I call sending the country down the toilet! How, may I ask, do the Liberals compare to this, from a national destruction perspective?

[gunzgirl85]

WELL guess what,
I just voted! WOhooo!

and it was deffinately not for the ppl in Blue :eek:

[piper]

[QUOTE=Emily_Ching]You seem to be a fan of the "bleeding heart" term. A term made very famous by a very famous Liberal... *conspiracy theory!!!!*
QUOTE]

I know. Trudeau said it. And I am a fan of that term. Don't ask why.

[Ching]

[QUOTE=Emily_Ching]You seem to be a fan of the "bleeding heart" term. A term made very famous by a very famous Liberal... *conspiracy theory!!!!*
QUOTE]

I know. Trudeau said it. And I am a fan of that term. Don't ask why.
but you didn't answer my question!