tml12

Let me know when you're done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrats So I take it you are acknowledging that the NDP supports the third-way?

The United States defends it's "interests". I am with you on the "Build up our armed forces". The US should laugh at its junior partner. Infact, I doubt we are even that. So when the US is seeking our "support" in order to lend a voice of credibility to their actions, it is just as important for us not to waste that credibility by simply signing the dotted line. If you are suggesting that if we had a larger military, then we would have "just cause" to openly challenge the US, then I disagree. France has a larger military than us, with nuclear weapons. They were completely opposed to the US invasion of Iraq, and where neither listened too, nor laughed at. Let them laugh at us, but after that, build up our military. Go forward with actions that will make the Military and Canada Proud, and continue to pick our foreign engagements with as much wisdom, information and knowledge as possible to set goals that are achievable. Yes, France has a larger military than us with nuclear weapons (and a foreign legion, which because the French are so weak it relies on to protect itself) and that is exactly why it can stand up to the U.S. The U.S. does not pay to defend France like it pays to defend Canada. If Canada's neighbours were any other country, Canada would be more or less be open to a foreign invasion...Canada in many ways takes U.S. support for granted.

And I asked for his citations as well and he didn't give any either. What he gave was his opinion. What he told us was his assessment based on his analysis of the armed forces by being a soldier...that is something one may not be fully able to sight.

I'm saying that your highlighting of only Liberals in Defence cuts is telling. Mulroney famously cut many programs and misspent on others. Mulroney was, in many ways, "Liberal lite." He was great on free trade but bad in others areas. Yet, while he may have made cuts to the military, his cuts were nowhere near as bad as the Liberals who seemed to indicate that they did not even believe this country should have a military...at the very least, they certainly discouraged ordinary Canadians from signing up.

Canada was still expected to send 2000 troops to Iraq for the second Gulf War. No one including Harper has ever said the reason that Canada didn't go to Iraq was because we couldn't spare the troops. This is a re-writing of history. People here keep saying that Chretien's decision to not send troops was because they were incapable of participating. There is no such claim out there that I know about. As far as the Iltis, the military believed they had the right vehicle for the narrow streets of Kabul. That proved to be wrong. Thankfully, once the military indicated they needed heavier vehicles, Martin go the G-Wagons sent out. The Liberals are guilty of many things when it comes to starving the military for people and equipment but this willful re-writing of history indicating that Chretien didn't participate in Iraq was because the military was incapable of going is just not supported by any evidence. I am not in the military but because the person who made that claim was I am willing to take his claim over yours.

The Chinooks were sold to the Dutch. The Dutch are using them in Afghanistan. Mulroney sold them. I am no Mulroney apologist, although his actions against the military in no way paralleled the Liberals. Are you playing the lesser of two eils jdobbin?

The reprocussions of PM Chretiens team calling BUSH an Moron, had little effect in Canada/US relations short of selling newspapers for an hour in the states and a week in Canada. The repercussions of Parrish, that it had less effect on her career then her challenging Martin. Both now Has Beens. The repercussions of Harpers "Good Diplomacy" would have resulted in Canada being in Iraq. Hardly a comparison. It would be one thing for Canada to challenge the U.S. if Canada didn't rely on the U.S. to defend Canada. Basically, Canada is like a 14 year-old child telling its parents it knows what is best for them. While in the case of Iraq, the child was right, that does not mean the child suddenly becomes the adult. If Canada really wants to challenge the U.S., it should build an armed forces like it had at the end of World War II...the fouth largest in the world. Until then, the U.S. will just laugh at its "junior partner."

No, it had more to do with this, and I will put it in terms that people that know Chretianise can relate to. The proof is in the proof, and if you got good proof, its proven. Or the US wouldn't show us anything, which was unusual for a Government looking for other Coalition partners. The presentation by Colin Powell drove those in the Know, more away from the cause then towards it, because the evidence contained cheap frauds, and nothing substantive that Iraq had WMD. Hardly an Argument today. It is proven. Fair enough, although I do not think that justifies Canada saying "we're not participating."

I'm no NDP supporter but that is just dumb. I personally think there is not much of a difference between the NDP and the Marxist-Leninist Party...BUT if you disagree, please let me know (and don't forget your citiations!!!)

Guess that depends on if you lived in Iraq or not Well yes madmax, I like most other believers in freedom, are happy to see Saddam gone. That being said, I believe that as long as the U.S. defends Canada, Canada has an obligation to follow, to some extent, U.S. foreign policy. Those who disagree with that must, logically in my opinion, support a complete strengthening of the Canadian military. The Liberals surrendered Canadian sovereignty when they cut funding to our military and said to the Americans "look just defend us, we're trying to create a peacekeeping myth here!" Harper understands this and is trying to increase Canadian sovereignty by rebuilding our armed forces.

In Manitoba, you are hearing more and more NDPers a little fed up. I don't know if it years of NDP government in Manitoba or Jack Layton. Certainly, there is no love lost with Jack Layton from Blaikie supporters or people from the Churchill riding who had their NDP MP given the boot by Layton. If you read "The Communist Manifesto" and study USSR history you should realize why NDPers are fed up.

That's probably why Canadian scientists have tested some MPs to bring awareness on the issue. As I said though, it is a separate environmental issue. I attach no less importance on it than other areas that scientists say are a threat. It is not a separate environmental issue jdobbin. Additionally, are you an apologist for the Liberal environmental record or do you acknowledge that it is clearly worse than the American one?

The U.S. isn't great skates on emissions either. I am still waiting for evidence that Bush is a great environmentalist. Bush ISN'T a great environmentalist...that's the whole point...

You don't think he has distanced himself from Iraq? What reason does he have for not supporting the Iraq mission now? I do not think Harper has anything to say about Iraq now. Canada is in there contrary to popular thought, doing its part for its allies. I think Harper has been eloquent and straightforward and very diplomatic toward the U.S. as prime minister. Something neither Martin nor Chretien were. I hope you also got a chance to read my citations that you asked for.

I'm afraid you are wrong. Our frontline troops were committed to Yugoslavia. The Canadian Air Force did fly bombing mission in Iraq. They flew 56 bombing runs in Iraq. http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cf-18/history_e.asp Wouldn't that technically undermine the leftwing's point that Canada stayed out of Iraq?

This wasn't diplomacy. It was a cheap political move that Harper has carefully tried to distance himself from ever since given what Iraq turned into. You're entitled to your opinion, though I clearly think you're wrong.

"Despite her small population, Canada had the 4th largest navy in the world." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_hist...econd_World_War "Behind the charade of peacekeeping, Trudeau destroyed Canada’s once powerful armed forces, leaving the nation a helpless military eunuch, with virtually no international influence, and totally dependant on the much-reviled ‘aggressive’ US for national defense." Source: http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/...eau_canadas.php "Early in 2002, Paul Heinbecker, Canada's then-ambassador to the UN, asked members of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs where Canada ranked as a peacekeeper. Most of the audience assumed that Canada was among the top 10 nations. Mr. Heinbecker revealed that Canada was 31st. By March of 2004, Canada had slipped to 38th." Source: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archi...hp/t-19936.html "The myth runs counter to the actual history of Canadian military operations since the end of the Cold War: the 1991 Persian Gulf war; the 1993 battle of the Medek pocket in Croatia; the 1999 invasion of Kosovo; and Afghanistan in 2003." Source: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archi...hp/t-19936.html

Citation? Funny how you ignore Diefenbaker and Mulroney. Didn't Mulroney sell Canada's helicopters? Be patient, they're coming...

I think it was Harper that took the moral superiority in saying Canada should go. He even wrote to the New Yorks Times to say so. This demonstrates good diplomacy, unlike PM Chretien's team calling the Americans "assholes" and Carolyn Parrish stepping on Bush dolls.

It is disgraceful right wingers who are not citing any evidence that Canada did not go to Iraq because it was not capable of it. Please produce the evidence of that otherwise I believe you are making stuff up. Canada's army endored years of splicing and dicing post-Korea by first Pearson, then Trudeau, and finally Chretien because they knew the U.S. would defend Canada and to create the myth of Canada as a "peacekeeper" while history shows that Canada has never played such a role...Canada used to have the fourth largest army in the world. Logic dictates Canada probably would have been a burden to the U.S. in Iraq but I would reckon it would again be a global powerhouse with modern equipment after a Harper majority or two.

That was moral superiority? Heck, I thought we just didn't believe in Bush's BS. Chretien portrayed it as moral superiority and you and I both know it.

Why not go to Iraq? What is the reason you had for not wanting to go? How would Bush protect Canadian soldiers when he can't even protect his own? As for the rest of your assertions on Canada and Iraq, please produce some citations. I simply don't believe any of it. I did not want to go to Iraq because I did not believe Saddam was a terrorist. I never said Bush would protect Canadian soldiers, I am not sure what you mean by "Bush can't protect his own soldiers," and please tell me what you'd like me to provide citations for and I'll do it.

Not unsurprising the Libs are so high in Ontario, Ontario believes in the Liberal myths of Canada. BC results do not look good at all.

I'm afraid that I have *never* heard that from any military person aside from yourself. I'd be hard pressed to find confirmation from any source of that is not why Canada is not in Iraq. I think it is quite clear that, thanks to Liberal cost-cutting measures, Canada's army could probably not handle Sweden's. And I should add, it is not because of the lack of courage among our brave and courageous soldiers but rather because the army is in need of dire rebuilding after successive Liberal governments let it go to shame. You may not know we used to have the fourth largest army in the world. I think it was weaponeer who stated that it is disgraceful that leftist Canadians have let down the armed forces through electing successive Liberal governments. I agree.

I already know what Sheila Copps thinks of Paul Martin. And Paul Martin *was* leader when asked according to the link I gave you. He said "no" again when asked for troops. Take a look if you don't believe it. Chretien majority=in control of the rhetoric and conscious only Paul Martin would face the consequences of his decision, Chretien said "no" about sending troops in. Then (as a true Liberal), showing he was clearly in it for the money, Canadian defense contractors went in to Iraq and have since made lots of $$$ in the country. The elites on the Canadian left clearly cannot show Canada's "moral superiority" in saying no. Plus I think you know we would have gone all the way with a Martin majority. That being said, you may be suprised to know that I did not favour the war in Iraq at all. However, knowing that Canada would end up there (and keeping in mind that Bush is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces that would protect us if we were attacked, along with our own courageous men) I thought Chretien should do the noble thing. Instead, he played good politics.