Nocrap

Children under six are not the only little ones who need help. It is interesting to me that Mr Harper, when a guest speaker for the Reform Party at an NCC dinner held at the Hamilton Golf and Country Club on May 24, 1994, discussing their progress - "These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party of Canada and in part to groups like the National Citizens’ Coalition...What has happened in the last five years? Let me start with the positive side...the family allowance program has been eliminated..." If this was such a 'positive' thing, why is he bringing it back? I think he is trying to buy us off. Everytime a difficult question is raised to any member of his caucus or PR staff, they answer it by saying "the cheques are going out" What does that have to do with Afghanistan or ethics? You be the judge. kids under 6 aren't in school. after that you get free daycare, called public education. lol.... good one. So if you're 7, you can just roam free before school, after school, PA days, March Break, Summer Holidays?? I think that's called child neglect, which would result in a 'public' trial.

Oddly, they have not done so. Perhaps you'd like to list for us the many kinds of freedoms the US and Canada have lost, and how. The freedoms that the US lost are far too many to list here (see the Patriot Act) , but Canadians have lost the right to choose whether they wish to remain in Afghanistan on a Peacekeeping mission, or follow the US Offense Department lead. History has revealed the Vietnam war for what it was, and will do the same with Iraq. Canadians should have the right, through their MP's, to keep our name out of the War Crime Tribunals that will follow. Don't make be ashamed to be Canadian.

How much a year do you spend on tinfoil? I don't use tinfoil, but if you could send me a little garlic. LOL

I doubt that you do either. If all you see is another 'clone of George Bush' then you need new glasses. Or another explanation is that you too are suffering from Harper Derangement Syndrome and Bush Derangement Syndrome. Both cloud the vision, which is usually tunnel vision at best. I guess I am also suffering from HDS, because even with my glasses, I don't see Harper as the next Mesiah. Fortunately, it is not terminal and I am being treated with an MG (Minority Government).

I have never had an abortion and if forced with the option, I'm not sure that I could go through with it. However, that is my personal 'choice'. On the other hand, I take offense to your comment "They have ultimate freedom of choice, but then download the legal & financial consequences of that choice onto men". First off, it is a very tough decision and most women who opt to have an abortion, don't enter into it lightly. As for the legal and financial responsibilties for the child, we do not 'download' that, but SHARE it. I wonder how many men, if they were told that they would have to put their careers on hold, would agree to carry a child full term. Paternity can always be questioned (yes I know about the tests), but maternity never can, and ultimately the mother must always bear the responsibilty.

Apparently killing is legal. It's called WAR!

Children under six are not the only little ones who need help. It is interesting to me that Mr Harper, when a guest speaker for the Reform Party at an NCC dinner held at the Hamilton Golf and Country Club on May 24, 1994, discussing their progress - "These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party of Canada and in part to groups like the National Citizens’ Coalition...What has happened in the last five years? Let me start with the positive side...the family allowance program has been eliminated..." If this was such a 'positive' thing, why is he bringing it back? I think he is trying to buy us off. Everytime a difficult question is raised to any member of his caucus or PR staff, they answer it by saying "the cheques are going out" What does that have to do with Afghanistan or ethics? You be the judge.

When I read Mr. Harper’s speech to our troops in Afghanistan, I immediately picked up on the ‘cut and run’, since it was a favourite of George Bush when discussing his occupation of Iraq. Most recently, in a speech to marines (United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland November 2005) he justified his reasons for not giving a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, stating that it “would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run...” However, after rereading the Bush missive, Mr. Harper may have plagiarized more than that one simple line and may have been doing so for sometime. Harper March 1, 2006 - “...important not just for global security but for Canada's role in the world to stay the course” . Bush November, 2005: “Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to, "stay the course” Harper: “Of course, standing up for core Canadian values” Bush: “The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere -- they object to our deepest values...” Harper: “We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We don't and we will not as long as I am leading this country”. Bush: “America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief.” Most of the points made by Mr. Harper to validate our new role as ‘Peacemakers’, were the same as those outlined by Bush in his ‘Strategy for Victory in Iraq’, so just pick a speech - any speech. Nothing new here. Of course he doesn’t just quote his new best friend, but obviously hangs on the words of all Republicans. Harper: “Your work is also about demonstrating an international leadership role for our country. Not carping from the sidelines” :, Pat Buchanan at the Republican Convention- “...the carping critics who sat on the sidelines of history...Rumsfeld, “carping from the sidelines does not prove your superiority” and “its conviction that it is right despite unfortunate carping from the sidelines” Harper “You can't lead from the bleachers”...this one has been done to death, just as “served as an incubator for terrorist organizations”. However, I prefer the context used by Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer "The military actions kindle the frustration, hatred and despair and are the incubator for the terror to come" Of course you’d never hear a Republican or Reformer using that line. And then in closing...Harper: “Thank you very much. God bless Canada” Bush: “...may God continue to bless the United States of America”. Since the Reform Party of Canada (or whatever Harper is calling his party these days), has never governed our country, how can he expect to lead us into war with rehashed Republican rhetoric. I guess he says it best at the press conference with the Afghan president. First: he claims that unfortunately he doesn’t have a majority and Canada has a parliamentary system.....We will not have a vote...we will have to first have a vote..... Hmmmm...Maybe you’d better stick to the script Stevie, because when you try to ad-lib you just can’t pull it off.

And since you haven't given any proof what-so-ever for either of your claims, I suppose we'll just have to take your word for it? I'm still waiting for a response to this. I love it when people talk out their @$$ and get called on it. Can you say Halliburton? Harper has also cashed in through a Canadian subsidiary. Their CEO added $5,100.00 to his coffers on July 22, 2005. He just didn't cover his tracks vry well.

I think Stephen Harper and George Bush have the same speech writer. On November 17, 2003; after scrapping plans to deliver a speech to the British Parliament because he feared being heckled by anti-war MPs, George W. Bush told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost show, that they would not "cut and run" from Iraq. Then more recently, at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland (November 2005), discussing the fact that the Democrats wanted a timeline for withdrawl of troops: "Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends." This is more than a little unsettling. I know they share the same PR firm, but couldn't he come up with something original? I know..."We'll smoke 'em out of their holes"..nah...that's been done too.

If Canadians really want to know what’s behind Harper’s sudden interest in an increased military presence, they need to look at a liitle old US scheme called NorthCom. From the ‘Special Briefing on the Unified Command Plan’ Wednesday, April 17, 2002; US Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who also happens to be the NorthCom commander; stated that it’s “geographic area will include, the continental United States and Alaska, Canada, Mexico and parts of the Caribbean and waters out to a minimum of 500 miles”. However, former PM Chretien refused to join NORTHCOM, seeing it as a threat to Canadian sovereignty, and why wouldn’t he? Canada's acceptance would not only mean support of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including hikes in defense spending that would be allocated to a defense program controlled by the Pentagon. (Re: Harper’s other blue book entitled Stand Up For Canada and Bend Over for the USA) When the late Vincent Massey was Canadian High Commissioner in London, he stated that "Canada has been too preoccupied with her own war effort to cope with the Americans who unfortunately, under the cover of the needs of war, are acting in the Northwest as if they owned the country." In 1982, Canadian diplomat John W. Holmes discussing NORAD - “if there were no rules, the Americans would simply take over the defence of the continent." Under NORTHCOM, Canada’s borders would be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians shared with Homeland Security (A US firm has already been given the contract to process Canadian Census forms. US troops and Special Forces would then be able to enter Canada and arrest any Canadian citizens they deemed to be a risk. Rumour is that Bush has promised to get rid of the 'Softwood Lumber' problem in exchange for Canadian troops to reinforce his, in preparation for the new war against Iran. This will solve two problems. Emerson will come off as the ‘softwood hero’, despite the fact that he had to sit out on the debates due to conflict of interest; and many of Harper’s campaign contributors will cash in big time on new military contracts. It’s a win-win, right???

"Conveniently attacked"? - What was convenient about some of us knowing people who died on 9/11 Mother F'er? If you were in front of me right now, the cops wouldn’t be able to pull me off you. Somebody needs to teach you some f*cking respect. And yeah, to answer your question, if you did get attacked (God forbid) and your loved ones died, I think you'd see things completely different. In defense of Margrave, I took it as tongue in cheek. 9/11 certainly made Bush and his cronies very wealthy men, so it's natural for some people to feel that it was a little too convenient. This does need mean that we do not feel compassion for the victims. However, reports that came out after, clearly indicate that Bush knew in advance that an attack was imminent, but chose to let it play out. Enough said.

You all should read this post again. Great post and I agree. The good news, however, for those of us who thought that Harper was bereft of human compassion; we can be assured that his only concern is the morale of the men and women of our armed forces stationed there. Nothing does more to boost the spirits of a battle weary soldier, than those three comforting words: 'Ten More Years"!!!

I have spent some time researching the fat cats behind Stephen Harper's rise to power and many have an association to the Fraser Institute (which has an association to the National Citizens' Coalition, our new PM's old digs), so I can only assume they mean Canadian Values according to Mr. Harper and the NCC.

I guess Harper took a page from the handbook of George W. Bush - When things get too hot to handle, go for the photo-op. You know he almost had me until he claimed that part of the mission was to enforce women's rights. He might as well have promised the Afghan people affordable daycare, same-sex marriage and publicly funded healthcare. It was all just blowing smoke.

I’ve read with great interest the recent unofficial debates over our involvement in Afghanistan; and feel that as Canadians, we need to revisit our role as Peacekeepers. After the attack on the World Trade Centre, we joined an international effort to capture Bin Laden, dismantle al-Qaida and remove the Taliban. However, when soon after 911, George W. Bush; capitalizing on the renewed patriotism and global sympathy; launched his assault on Iraq; many of us took a step back. This was not what we’d signed on for. We are now in a position where we have a new, untested government, and despite efforts to hide behind a Tory blue smoke screen; Stephen Harper’s party is still the Reform/Alliance with a Reform/Alliance platform, and it was his party that was so adamant that we join the American led invasion. Then we have as our new Minster of Defense; retired Brigadier-General Gordon O’Connor; who plans on touring Canada to sell his party’s foreign policy. I have the utmost respect for his credentials; but after retiring from the Canadian military, he took a job as a lobbyist for the PR firm Hill and Knowlton. Many Canadians may remember, or can certainly verify, that Hill and Knowlton was engaged by both the Reagan and Bush administrations to sell the justification of war to the American people. Now that Mr. Harper is stating that his decision to stay the course is not open for discussion, and Peter McKay is looking at a commitment of up to ten years; we need to force the issue. This is not about being cowards, and most Canadians, including myself, fully support the men and women of our armed forces. However, we have no desire to put them in harm’s way, if the initiative is just to support more American aggression. We need to force our government to stick to our original mandate or bring our people home. Promoting Democracy is fine; but not at the expense of our own