Moonlight Graham

The Canadian public does not vote for the PM, they vote for an MP in their riding. The PM is whomever holds the confidence of the House, almost always coming from the party of majority. The PM is, technically, determined after the federal election is over. However, i understand your point.

Just google it & you'll find a lot of stuff like this: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politica...r-black-or.html http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14824/ http://www.niu.edu/PubAffairs/RELEASES/200.../research.shtml

Since when does "vengeance" equate to justice in American society, or most countries in the west for that matter? When somebody murders a family of four, the courts don't order the murderer & his 3 closest family members to death. When you use violence to seek justice for violence, all you do is create more violence. Americans know this, that's why your system of law isn't based on "eye-for-an-eye", and you have laws protecting against "cruel & unusual punishment". So why is U.S. foreign policy (and many western countries, including Canada at times, for that matter) not consistent with its domestic policy? That's not to say military action wasn't needed after 9/11, but i don't see how we are any safer long-term, and i certainly wouldn't call what the west has done to Afghanistan & Iraq "justice". Abu Ghraib, water-boarding (and the continued debate of it among presidential candidates!?!), gov't sponsored foreign regime changes/coups/assassitions (or attempts of), military actions based on protecting delicious oil, non-military action based on it not protecting delicious oil (Rwanda, Sudan), pooping on the Geneva Conventions Why does the U.S. not extend its respect for domestic human rights into its foreign policies? It is not only the U.S., many in the west do the same, but the U.S. is by far the biggest perpetrator.

My American friends know quite well how i feel about their government. Most of them agree with me. As i said, Canada's independence from Britain was mostly peaceful (save minor rebellions in Upper/Lower Canada) and did not involve a violent revolution. Canada's independence was a counter-revolution, which was a direct result of the U.S. Revolution, where Britain feared would be repeated in Canada & thus granted us responsible gov't and eventually came the BNA Act in 1867. The U.S. Constitution is an amazing document which has influenced the democratic consititutions of many countries & the spread of liberal democracy throughout the world. People like James Madison, responsible for things like the seperation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism in the constitution, were indeed brilliant. I admire the system that the U.S. governs itself with, but that doesn't mean i admire the actions of some of the people who have held power in that system. There's a huge difference.

Its a wonderful system as i have stated, but i am just questioning the actions of some of the individuals working within that system. Not that Canada is perfect by any means, nor could i even say that Canada would have done a better job if we were in the U.S.'s position of power. That doesn't mean i can't criticize the U.S. gov't for its failures (just as i would my own gov't). As the great philosopher Ben Parker (Spider-Man's uncle) once said: "With great power comes great responsibility".

Early American imperialism was not ok, no. But neither was European imperialism at the same time. I guess you could say the US gov'ts have been similar, but certainly different in the power & influence they had on the world.

I like the U.S. overall, they are a good neighbour. I have some great American friends. Canada's peaceful independence from Britian has the American Revolution to thank. The American Founding Fathers were brilliant men, & the U.S. Constitution has been a wonderful example for other countries to follow toward their own democratic reform. There's a good portion of Americans i don't like however, but there's a portion of Canadians i don't like either hehe. The thing i detest about America is its government, most specifically its foreign policies post-WWII. The U.S. is a super-power, and it could/can do a much, much better job on the foreign stage. The arrogance of the U.S. government is overwhelming. U.S. interventonism has gone much too far, and is only now starting to backfire in her face. The American public has much to blame for this. I'm glad that a stable, democratic country is the world's only super-power, but i would much rather that super-power be a country less right-leaning, more progressive in human rights, & less obsessed with blowing people up. The fact that a good portion of Americans still have a problem with a woman or black person becoming President says a lot about how far the U.S. still has to go. I know that many Americans do not feel this way, and are in fact wonderful people, but unfortunately they haven't rubbed off on some of the "smaller-brained" individuals yet. Its unfortunate that some of these "smaller-brained" people end up in important positions in government.

Chretien isn't some wise, knew-more-than-the-other-countries PM in his Iraq decision. He had no idea there would be no WMD's, nuke program, that he'd been lied to by Bush admin, or that the war would be the big quagmire it is. Chretien played it politically smart. Wars are devisive, especially if they aren't approved by the U.N. The Iraq war was especially controversial, even before the invasion. Chretien had no opinion on the Iraq war, he left Canada's decision up to the U.N. security council. He played it very well politically, but Chretien doesn't get an enormous amount of credit from me for being "Canada's saviour from Iraq". Damaging relations between the U.S. & Canada certainly doesn't mean as much to the Liberals/Chretien as damaging themselves domestically in the polls.

agreed. Canada joining the coalition would have been a nice feather in the cap for the Bush admin politically, given Canada's "peace-loving" reputation.

I could have sworn we had at least a few racists on the forums...

I also supported Canada becoming a part of the invasion in 2003 based on all the intelligence & rhetoric that was being stated by the U.S., Britain etc. Most of it were lies. If i knew then what i know now about the WMD's & U.S. truth-twisiting, i wouldn't have supported the war. Many others also fall into this category. Harper could be flipping for political reasons, or he could fall into this category as well. Its extremely hard for us to know what his true thoughts are/were. What i'm quite sure of is that if Canada joined the U.S. coalition, they'd very likely be long out of Iraq because of popular demand, no matter who was governing.

Ya Chretien said "he wasn't there". Actually, he was there when Canada signed the Kyoto treaty in 1998, and he was there when the treaty was ratified in 2002..and he was there for another year after that. Yet the Liberal gov't did next to nothing. Not to mention the years when Chretien was PM since 1993. Obviously, Chretien has a large portion of the blame on Canada's environmental and kyoto failures.

Do you have a link where Harper says he was against the 2003 invasion as you say? I'm not a big Harper fan, but i do remember him saying in the last year or so that he did support the Iraq invasion in 2003 based on what U.S. and other intelligence was saying about WMD's etc., and Harper added that if he knew there would be no WMD's he wouldn't have supported Canada going into Iraq. From CBC during 2006 election coverage: "On Iraq in particular, he said he was happy about the removal of Saddam but would not commit Canadian troops to the conflict, and he felt "great disappointment" at the breakdown in pre-war intelligence." http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/iraq.html

Britain has had a lot more trouble among the non-white immigrant population than Canada has, so i don't see any "white nationalism" happening in Canada to the same hardline extent. But add a successful terror attack to the mix and some Canadians will be clamoring for some immigration/refugee reform. In Canada, with the (mostly white) babyboomers getting older & retiring, we're going to see even more immigrants piling into the country. Our gov't is going to get very desperate to boost the population to increase tax revenues. I have no problem with bringing any immigrants into Canada as long as our gov't is letting in quality people into the country & not criminals, the diseased, extremists etc. I fear our standards for immigrantion & refugees in Canada is really going to decline as the babyboomers retire. The Canadian gov't should do a lot more to encourage Canadians who already live here to have more children. More tax breaks or tax credits for Canadians who have children. Right now our gov't wants mothers to be in the workforce & paying taxes, not staying at home with their kids. They punish mothers for staying home. This has changed slightly under the Harper gov't, but much more is needed. Working moms are likely to have less children than moms who choose to stay at home with their children. And parents who have to suffer financially and tax-wise if one chooses to stay at home are less likely to choose to stay at home.

Not a wise thing by me to make a passionate thread during the holidays when i'd be too busy to respond until now. My apologies. Borg, i wouldn't say i'm inexperienced in the ways of the world. Though i will certainly admit i am not an expert on African politics, and am a bit inexperienced in that regard, though am learning all the time. I agree that corrupt governments are a large problem in many of Africa's impoverished nations. We have given hundreds of billions of $$$ in aid to African countries, and many times it is used to buy arms/fund wars, kept by the greedy officials, or simply invested poorly. There definately needs to be reform in the way aid is delivered and made sure it is appropriated in the proper way. I don't think war is necessary in many cases. I'd imagine some corrupt & greedy gov'ts can be bought off, on the condition that aid is delivered properly (though i know its not always quite as simple as that). Instead of spending 100's of billions of dollars on a military operation, it would be much cheaper & much less bloody to promise the corrupt gov'ts money in exhange for their cooperation in aid. In cases such as Rwanda and Sudan and now Chad, military intervention should have occured, but of course powerful nations such as the U.S. don't have much of a history (if any) of helping other countries militarily on a moral basis if it doesn't directly benefit them (security, oil etc.) I don't have an answer to the question you left me with, though i have tried to find it. Please enlighten me. I don't think it was selfish. In the end, all i wanted to do was help people. The quote i tore from the magazine has been plastered permenantly on my myspace page for 2 years now, in signatures on some message boards i frequent, and shown by me in other ways such as to friends & in this very thread. More people have certainly seen that quote than would have if it had been kept in that office a few more weeks & then thrown away when the next issue came in. However, if i could do it over again i would have simply written down the quote, but i was pressed for time originally. I agree. At times it becomes depressing & overwhelming knowing all the suffering & strife that occurs in this world, but i'm proud to say i do my fair part to make the world a better place, though i can always do better. I educate myself & try to keep up with current events as best i can (newspapers etc.). I write members of my government telling them what i think, especially in times leading up to gov't budgets, G8 meetings etc. I am an active member of the Make Poverty History campaign here in Canada, and proudly where my white bracelet to inform others of the cause. I also bug my friends and family on issues i believe they should be aware of. I've also donated to charities and some local shelters some money & goods that i can spare. Trips to Africa or other impoverished countries would be an amazing experience & i'll consider it. To the other posters, thanks for your input, some great posts here.

Actually, gold is a great conductor of electricity. But i doubt the pharaoh's knew much about this heheh...

karma will catch up to Dick one day. That will include a shotgun blast to the face.

How can we all sleep at night knowing that many tens of thousands of people are dying every day due to preventable causes? The fact that you are reading this now proves you live in an industrialized country. We, as citizens of 1st world countries have been a dismal failure to the rest of our brothers and sisters of the human race. I read this in a doctors office a few years ago: This statistic disgusts me. So much so i ripped the page out of the magazine & brought it home with me. These numbers have only increased over the past few years. Where is our morality in all this? This holiday season we are busy buying Plasma TV's and Guitar Hero 3 for others, and for ourselves the rest of the year when at the same time people in 3rd world countries are dying at an alarming rate (and many living pretty pathetically in our own cities as well). Why don't we care much about people if they happen to live outside the artificial geographic borders we have constructed? And please don't give me the "aid to 3rd world countries gets eaten up by corrupt dictators" B.S. excuse. If we wanted to, we could give the aid directly to most people who need it. I'm not very religious, but most of us in North America are Christian, and yet we are complete hypocrites in the teachings of Jesus. If he we alive today i'm sure he wouldn't be buying new rims for his truck or a Nintendo Wii while others are dying of disease & malnutrition not far away. This holiday season enjoy that warm fuzzy feeling when you give $50 to the local homeless shelter or Unicef, and enjoy the splendor afterwards when you go home to watch "Its a Wonderul Life" with your family on your 50" Plasma TV while an ocean away babies are drinking black water laced with human feces. The Industrial Revolution has given us the wealth and the technology to do something to stop this. Poverty is the #1 problem facing humanity today, not empty paranoid nuclear threats, because people are ACTUALLY dying. I believe we have absolutely no excuse for this B.S. to continue. It is fundamentally unethical. It is Nazi Germany x 1000. I want to know: - do you care? - If not, why not? - If you do care, what heck are you going to do about it?

I like the idea of a gun registry, i'm just concerned about its effectiveness. I guess we'll just have to give it time so we can gather some evidence of whether its working or not.

You forgot the part about misleading a nation and international community into a war based on false, misleading, or questionable reasons that has led to the deaths of innocent people numbering in the 6-figures & costing a disgusting amount of money. I must agree that Clinton had an easier time in office. No 9/11 for him. But i have to assume he would have done a better job post 9/11 because its very difficult to do any worse. The one thing i'll tip my cap to Bush on is that there hasn't been another terror attack on domestic soil. Unless you count that weird anthrax period. That's really the only major thing i see he's done well at. I give Clinton a C- and Bush an F+.

And that's worked out very well i hear.

or helped completely reverse a depressed economy. I'm thinking if Bush was President in FDR's time he'd intern 180,000 people and lower taxes on the top 1% to get us out of that dang depression! WELFARE STATE?!? No, all government BAD!

Agreed, but that just proves that knowledge/expertise doesn't necessarily result in being a good minister. But its safe to say that if a Minister has good credentials in one's area of concern it would make him/her a better Minister. I'm sure it wouldn't help if you were a Minister of Finance & had a degree in economics &/or past real-world business experience. But as u said it doesn't work that way in Canada.

I agree that tough gun laws are important. Thank God we don't have "the right to bear arms" written into our constitution like the U.S., mainly because we are not a country stemming from revolution or supressed by tyranny. But the gun registry is a good idea in principle, but it just doesn't work. Its very expensive, and it really wouldn't do a ton of good compared to the cost. I'd use that money to keep fighting illegal gun control.

Agreed.