Communist_boy

Speaking of his predecessor, this is exactly what chreitien wanted. It is no secret him and martin dont agree. He waits for as long as he can, gets out before this bad report comes out, yet stretches it out so the the liberal mandate will be as short as possible. He spent much of the surplus, and remains close lipped about this entire issue. Chretien seem it coming, and whether or not martin did, chretien still took advantage of leaving before it came out. he still could be our PM until the end of february, but he realized that when everything happened he would be at the center, making him getting out peacefully very difficult, at least this way he can sit on the sidelines for as long as possible. Thats just my idea, but things seem to fit together quite well really.

As far as I know, the stryker system had been cancelled after the budjet freeze martin instituted. However i definetly agree that they are not a good thing. They cant fire on the run, as far as i know they cant do a full turret turn. The leapards do need to be replaced, but not by stryker, If the Canadian military would invest in the Leopard 2, which by the way has been tested and proved to be a very well fitted tank for the Canadian forces. As for the sea kings, they deffinetly need replaced, I believe it is now 3 people that have died over the past 10 years due to them. Also when the Americans were buying their Hummers, they were made in Canada, the company came to the canadian government and asked if they wanted to buy them at the same time for a reduced price. The government said no. Also the Americans extended a deal to the Canadians to sell them their slightly out of date hummers for a very reasonable price, and what did the government say, no. Im kinda seeing a pattern in what the government wants. The only thing that is some what decently equiped is our Navy, with the exception of the Iroquis and Kingston class, which are considered completely obsolete within the next 10 years, and what does the government do, there are no current plans to buy new ships. Heres a plan, lets get someone that can count, and realises that it is cheaper to keep up to date rather than waiting until it is 50 years to late. Perhaps there should be a test for PM, you must be intelligent, and understand what needs to be done, you never know it may just work, its never been tried before.

The problem that clements has, is publicity, If it wasnt for this board all i would know about is Stronarch and Harper. And even then stronarch is way more publicied because of her money. If hey had more money he could actually stand a chance. But until people know that he is running, and know what he will do, then the race will primarilly be between Belinda and Stephen.

The only reason i can see here are his weapons, It is not just the medias spinning what he said, he stated it. President Bush Discusses Iraq President Discusses Growing Danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Regime He seems pretty hung up on WMD there. President Stresses Need for Strong Iraq Resolution Once again the only reason in this PC is WMD. If you would like more, then just ask, you can not just say the media is putting a spin on it. Of course the news is focussing on a major part. Obviously this administartion has talked about WMD as a source for war. The media is now just showing that they are wrong so far. Whether or not they will find them, I dont know, however it seems that if he had of trumpeted the idea of human rights, the war would have been easier to justify, and he probably would have gained the support from other nations which opposed iot. The people that claim that he did it for hummanitarian reasons, are just making an excuse for him, which is what you are in effect doing to all the "liberals" on this site. Oh and BTW whatever remaining respect I had for you is gone after this lovely narrow sighted point that you made:

Ok with all that said. If Iraq is a success, will the US be willing to continueally commit until the entire world is a democracy, I highly doubt that they will, even have the reserve to continue with the fight. They may not have started the ball roling, but they didnt exactly stop, or even slow it down. The situation in the Middle East was seriously disturbed by us, especially after WW2. If we hadn't of assumed we knew exactly what they wanted then, we wouldnt be here now. Everyone always says they want democracy. But to my knowledge no terrorist group has asked the US to give them it, I don't even recall any group asking for democracy. And alot of those groups are angered by the Western Ideals, one of which being democracy. People assume to much about that area. The world leaders need to listen to what the groups are saying. Then they can calm them peacefully. No one sits down with the people that they are trying to "help" and asked them how they can help. There are however a few assumtions that can be made: 1) The war on terrorism will last for an extremly long time, possibly, until the end of mankind 2) The US can not just win people over to western ideas by "liberating" the middle east.

O and BTW this is a little off topic, so rasputin I already know im "off topic" talk so there is no point in telling me or anyone here about me being off topic. For those of you who would support the war baised on humanitarian reasons, check this out: Human Rights Watch decries Iraq war Heres another good article: Ex US-Treasury Chief: Saw No Evidence of Iraq WMDs Bush Planned Iraqi Invasion Before Sept. 11-Report The greater threat, we know they have weapons, yet we do little to stop them: N.Korea Shows U.S. Delegation 'Nuclear Deterrent'

Ah yes because people who want their own nation, much like the Americans themselves wanted, will begin attacking America as they did on Sept 11. Ridding the world of terorism is a noble cause but, perhaps we should listen to what the terrorists have to say before we kill them to. What US security is being upset by the supposed WMDs in Iraq. They still have found nothing. Members of his government have come forward saying that Bush was in a trance and obsessed with Iraq until 9/11. That raises the question, did he have physic powers that know one else in his cabine had. Perhaps he did, he foresaw an invasion that push america deeper into debt. The US should have let the organization "that they put SO much into" do its job, people complain that the UN doesnt do anything. Oddly enough these people are the same people who wouldnt give them a chance. Obviously they did a pretty good job in Iraq before as there are none to be found.

YOU began the conversation on the UN. YOU stated that the US pays in the most. YOU accused the UN of not doing enough. Therefore YOU strayed from the topic. YOU provide this list and request an answer to these things. When I attempt to explain one part to you, YOU accuse ME of straying, perhaps you should look at who I was responding to in my post, you may get a better idea of who to attack.

The US pays the most really, interesting statement, Theres the top ten countries in order of who contributes the most. Another beautiful idea which helps only america. Sure they are SUPPOSED to may more than anyone else but, as was quoted before they still have outstanding dues. BTW if you look its not much higher than Japan. All of this can be found at CHAPTER 5: IS THE UNITED NATIONS GOOD VALUE FOR THE MONEY?

A rogue state. Let us look at the definition of the world rogue, To defraud. Let us remeber that concreate evidence that said Iraq had these major stockpiles of WMD, however in recent news they have this shocking revalation that there might not be those weapons after all. Large, destructive, and anomalous. In this case lets compare this definition to the US, they certainly are large, very destructive, lets just look at Iraq X2, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Europe from both wars, plus those numerous little countries that they helped to destroy secretly. So they certainly qualify as being "rogue". They attack a nation with the possibility of wanting to think about maybe getting WMD, with little international support. And in the process avoid the real source of problems. If they wanted to fix the terrorism problem in the Mideast they may want to look at Suadia Arabia (SA). After all something like 7 out of 15 highjakers were Saudi's. Bin Ladens funding comes from SA. Or maybe deal with NK, they avoid a major instability, because there is a possibility of loosing, and Bush knows that he must avoid that, so he picks a fight with someone who is far less a threat to world peace and stability. Hussien may not be a nice guy but lets look at who is a problem to world stability.

Powell: Iraq May Not Have Possessed WMD Thats the article he was refering to. WMD must be removed from all nations no matter the nation. There is no logical reason for them to exist, MAD no longer exists. The USSR has colapsed. They will certanly not Nuke a country just because someone detonates a stick of TNT, i should hope. The americans are in effect one of the largest hypocrits to be found, besides Russuia they have one of the largest if not the largest supply of WMD.

Perhaps we should leave the UN completely, move unilaterally, invade whoever we want without the use of diplomacy first, of course this would reduce our foriegn affairs requirements, and we could build the military until it could crush even america. Hmm... lets see if there are any problems with that. Oh, I dont know the term WW2 comes to mind. And about economic reform, building the military and foriegn policy, your comment that we should move away from socialism makes a little sense, until once again you remeber WW2. The great depression hits the world, major affect in capitalist countries, very little in Communist countries, btw, Then the National Socialists take charge in Germany. They immediatly up the military and repair the economy. With the combo of their foreign policy and military they practicaly forced the world into submission. Kinda sounds like a Socialist country can have a strong military, and a strong economy to drive the military. Hows that for "focussing" on this topic???

It is interesting, the people who are against Martin and the liberals are also the ones who want war, Well in Britain their version of the liberals, labour party, said yes and went, now the conservatives are just using this against them. If Chretien had of gone it would be the same thing here. It was a well thought out political move to stay out. Had we have gone our military would be in even worse shape, also providing more to the fire for the conservatives who oppose the liberals, more just to argue than for good cause at times.

So then if i read this correctly: Is that we remove the Senate, Govenor General and the Privaccy commissioner, those are what you consider useless, or waists of money eh. Those things are part of our heritage, and while the US still exists we must hold onto them as much as possible. With the exception of the privacy commish. I do however believe that they should be cut back. And that glorious thing known as the gun registry. People call it useless baised on the fact that it didnt work within a few years, if given time it will work. A program of that sort can not just be jumpstarted and assumed to be perfect. The same thing would be said about the military if more money was put in. You would have people complaining within a few years that it isnt enough, or its not the way it should be. There were only 2 major mistakes with the gun registry: 1) the cost was not accuratly estimated. 2) it isnt stong enough

I would like to know. I have seen this many times here, and i am at a loss to understand what everyone here considers "useless" programs. The cause of investing in the military is very important one. However by just investing in our military we must ensure that we do not just become the American lapdog, free to do its bidding. The forces need to use their money wiser as well. The new Stryker vehicles are a bad option. The Sea Kings, brutallty obsolete. However I do not support the critisism of the RCN's decision to purchase the four submarines, they are basically good equipment, with a few kinks i admit, but the media needs to smarten up. They blew that situation way out of proportion.

well Mackay is officially off the list. MacKay checks out of leadership race My theory on this is that if Harper wins Mackay will get something out of it.

The idea is a good one, however a very difficult one. As slavik pointed out the money is one problem. If you remove the taxe cuts to the corporations as was originaly suggested then you have the problem of them leaving Canada and goin to another area where there are no taxes. Also involved in that CSL would have to pay up. Another issue is the fact that education is under the control of the provinces. If the federal government tried anything the provinces would get upset, even if they are puting in money. The feds have given provinces money before, and the provinces wanna spend it on their own budjet, and at times have rejected money because they couldnt spend it. The number of university seats needs to be raised all across the nation, not just in one province. Education needs more funding everywhere. Spending 4 years in Alberta, 6 in Ontario, and 4 hear in NB has taught me that, although ALB has the best, it comes at a great cost to the people, in High School you pay for your courses. That has been their solution to spending. Ontario pretty much stopped the funding under Mike Harris. Another lovelly solution, Nova Scotia refuses to raise wages, another effective idea (cause all teachers to strike and support workers to strike, ie... no bill). The Canadian government must work with the provinces and work out where the money can be best spent, Im thinking major loan coming shortly in order to fix some serious problems.

Id say the liberals are doing this mainly as a public relations thing, also depending on the cost, it means they can "support" the military with less, saying that we are now better defended. As for the NDP opposing this, go figure. They want to remove the military all together. thats what they want so they will oppose anything that invests more money in it. Martin is looking for an easy way to fulfill his promnisses, mainly building the military. speaking of which, I was sent this article, quite comical but I figured someone might like it here, CANADIAN WARSHIP SEIZES TANKER IN... WAIT... Im all for helping the military, but before we sign any deals then we must evaluate the deal we are in, the threat level of such an attack, what we will gain on this, how much control we will have over the program. It is a very complex issue that should not be easily signed off on. Also if this comes up in the election it could theoretically steal some of the CPC's thunder, as they will no doubt be for it in order to help the military.

And as for the Charter, you think that you should be able to discriminate against anyone at any time? That is quite barbaric, You obviously support a democracy, and the true test whether or not a democracy is succesful, lies in its ability to protect the weakest member of its society. To say it was forced on the country is hardly true. It was voted in by the majority of citizens. if people elect the liberals, conservatives or any other party to that position where they can push acts through, then the people must suffer the consequences. It seems some havnt learned from history. And besides there must have been a reason they won by such a majority, could it be, the people like there ideas, or is that too far fetched to believe. You my friend in that position have suffered one the greatest injustices of democracy, you have been forced by the many into there viewpoint. Here in NB some people finally realized that and took a vast number of seats from Bernard Lord, and gave them to the liberals. Theyt didnt do it because of policy, niehter one of the two parties id trust with anything more important than the managent of a paper bag. They did it because a democracy doesnt work unless it is a minority government in command.

To remove Canada from NATO would we a tremendous move. One that serve to unbalance the North Atlantic region. It wouldnt be that easy for them to remove Canada any ways, as removal requires the resignation of the party in question. Taking land back will benefit Canada by allowing the government and the people to do with this land what it pleases rather than having to deal with American influence. As Macdonald once said, Canada for Canadians.

First of all, I can tell that some of your ideas are based on misunderstanding what i said. Downloading of music is legal. Check out this news article: Canada deems P2P downloading legal Second, with respect to land reform, i am not sure that i said they stole it. Also I didn't say that we would steal it back. I merely said we would aquire it back. Third you increase the production of goods by creating Canadian companies to do the job. Forth, Im not sure if you are aware of something known as NATO. If not here is article 5 of the treaty in response to America invading Canada: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security . And article 7 outlines an 'armed attack' This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. I did not say we legalize it, i merely said we decriminalize it, there is a major difference, BTW decriminalization may also be a far better deterant as it would not be seen as such a major thing to teenagers. About electing the Senate every 4 years, I mentioned 10 as the purpose of the senate is to review bills and once they have been passed to carry through and see what effect they have, therefore making it easier to make new laws. And if you want to ban all addictive substances then you might as well ban computers and the internet. Cause im deffinetly addicted to them. Cutting all but the most eccential serices, that sounds more communist than my ideas. LMAO

This is my platform, were I to run for PM, I was just wondering what the people of this forum think. Section 1: My government will allow the downloading and uploading of music and videos. This will serve to unite the people of this country. There would be a small fee each year to users of this in order to compensate for other programs; the fee would be based on income of the person rather than how much they used it. This plan includes all music, videos and documents, with the exception of software. This will be the policy as those things were made for entertainment and so therefore they will entertain the people. Section 2: The people of Ontario and Quebec have controlled Canadian politics for to long. We will work to redistribute the power among the country giving the West, East and North more say in the running of the country. This will help get supporters throughout the country and will hopefully do something very few parties have done, Unite the Country. The only foreseeable problem would be the constitution, however when the math is done we could control enough of the country that it would pass the amending formula. Section 3: Boosting military funding would allow for a viable future and also protect Canada from people who wish to do her harm. This would also serve to amend the riff that has been created between Canada and America. It is also a required step for the implementation of the land reform program. Section 4: We instrument land reform in which we remove land owned by Americans and sell it to the people of Canada. This will help to reduce national debt by giving the Government of Canada a firm basis. Also as a part of this we would increase production of essential goods in Canada, predominantly in the Maritimes, in order to alleviate unemployment and poverty in that region. This would also serve to assist employment insurance to be reorganized and better equip it to deal with poverty in other parts of the nation. This is also in order to counter the inevitable measures that will be taken by the US if we carry through. Section 5: Also we will remove the clarity act, which keeps Quebec in Canada, allowing us to gain more seats from them. This would also serve as a remedy to the deep riff with them as well. I would be viewed as improving relations. Section 6: We would extend provincial status to the territories in order to give them more say and benefits and gain support in the north. Section 7: Decriminalization of marijuana will provided more funds, though both fines and reduced cost in the courts, to go to things such as the military and health care. It could also be used as a way to reduce the number of people who use it. Section 8: To legalize gay marriages would be a very tricky thing to do but it is required for religious freedom. We would make steps to extend this institution to the people of the homosexual community. We would not force it on the churches, however we would allow them to choose if they want to or not. Section 9: Smokers who take up the habit after we are in power would be required to pay a minor fee when accessing the public healthcare system. This money could be used in order to help pay for costs within the system. Section 10: The GST must be used to eliminate Canada’s national debt. Since the majority of the debt is internal, we pay off the foreign debt. Then we call in all peoples possessing bonds and what not to collect or they will loose them. This will eliminate the debt, and therefore once the military and healthcare are rebuilt we can do away with the GST. Section 11: The gun registry is an important step however we will take it to another level. All non-hunting firearms will be confiscated. Hunting weapons will be permitted but must be registered and fully accounted for. If people wish to use another type of weapon for target practice then they will be allowed to go to a local range and rent a weapon and and the ammunition to be used. Whatever they don’t use will be turned in and they will be reimbursed. Section 12: The senate should no longer be appointed. We will force elections for the senate which will happen every 10 years. This will help ensure that the people of Canada are listened to justly. Also the Ethics commissioner will be made a completely separate extension that will report only to parliament, in order to clean up corrupt acts.

Wow some one on this board who hasnt been suked in by the conservative propaganda machine. The point you raise is an interesting one though. If you ask this question then you must also ask what we will do instead. If we abolish the govenor general then we move towards a more american style of government. If you ask this question then you must also This would not be much of a change as we already elected incompetent, bumbling idiots into office. What Canada needs is a uniquely Canadian system that would work for Canadians from BC to Ontario, and then again from NB to NL. we can forget about those pathetic excusses for Canadians in the middle. After all they wanna be known as Quebecouis rather than Canadian. Canada needs a united party, and government form that represent all parts and levels of society. Not just the right or left, east or west. One real problem is Quebec and Ontario having as much power as they do. That is what we must fix first, rather than who is appointed to what figure head job.

1) Jean Chretien, FORMER PM, for finnally realizing that his views are not shared by the rest of Canada and for steping down after a continuing the slaughter of our Military along with other things. 2) Paul Martin, New PM who has continued the track of beating up on the little in order to get ahead. And for finnally getting rid of the former anequated moron who was running the show. Now all we need is someone to remove him.

Stephen Harper, the leader of the new Conservatives, it may not be the CA taking over the PC but lord help the CPC if Harper leads it. If he is the best that they can offer then we might as well crown a Liberal as the King of Canada as he aint got a snowball's chance in hell. The Conservatives havnt been a force since before 1993. After that they were bairly a party, lol, Kim Cambell that was a laugh, Brian Mulroney he was one of the bigest liers ive heard of. The liberals will win this election just like the last three. Canada needs a radically new political party that will reform politics and give the power to where it truly belongs, with the PEOPLE of Canada, not the corporations, or two faced fink politicions. BTW, I'm not speaking of Communism as my name may suggest, rather Comsocarchy, then we can be truly free. There are no more Conservatives left in Canada, they have been invaded, and as for the CA they arnt on the right, they're so far right fell off the damn scale. The revolution will begin, it already has, reform is coming, and all who stand in its way will we wiped away.