Newfie Canadian

I agree that the old PM could have, especially if he had gotten some guarantees from Bush about space weaponization (on which a lot of people seem to be transfixed) and increased input through NORAD.

You make a valid point August. But, did they all have majority governments because they did it that way or did they do it that way because they had majorities? I see what you're saying and you may be right. The more I think about it, PM circa 1995 (the confident Finance minister) may have been able to do it the way you suggest.

To me, it only goes to show ignorance on by the White House about the tenuous position of a minority government. I know I don't have to explain this to you Stoker, but I'll do it for those of us who may not have much exposure to Canadian politics. A party exists to be elected and re-elected. To do that they have to gauge the pulse of the electorate, which in this case according to the polls are against BMD. To join the program, even in a limited way, which by the way it seems Martin was heading, it had to be done quietly, which Bush shot out of the sky in Halifax. And don't give me any crap about it being Martin. If it were Harper, Duceppe, Layton or BoBo the Clown in a minority government, it would have been done the same way. Of course, besides it's unpopularity, there are issues with the system itself, for instance it don't work, yet. Just for clarity sake are there any Canadians here who believe that, knowing what the polls are saying now, any party that comes out with a blanket approval of BDM and publicly announce an intention to join it would form a government in an election? As for Ft. Niagra's assertion that Canadians are cowards. That's your opinion and your entitled to it, as the US do not have a monopoly on free speech and civil rights. I think your wrong. Canadians aren't cowards any more than all Americans are gun toting hillbillies. (I hate stereotypes.) That's my opinion. Not joining the debacle that is Iraq wasn't a sign of cowardice, it was a sign that the adminstration didn't prove Iraq was an immediate threat becasue of it's WMD. Canadians don't want to join BMD not because of cowardice, but because it don't work, it may never work, it may lead to a new arms race (you build a shield, I'll build more or better missiles), etc. I will give you one thing so far Ft. Niagra, Martin is living in dream world if he thinks the US will respect Canadian airspace.

I agree with anticlimates, sort of. Bush brought unwanted, uneeded and unnecessary attention to BMD when he brought it out into the open in Halifax. The only chance he had in getting Martin to sign on in a minority government situation was to get in under the radar as much as possible. That went out the window in Halifax. Bush's tactic backfired. Instead of lighting a fire under Martin to do something, it brought the issue even further into the open and more Canadians looked at it and didn't like it. Now before someone says I blame Bush for eveything, I don't. Martin could have went ahead anyway and showed some leadership, unlike what he's doing now. To paraphrase, 'We won't sign on or support BMD, but you better ask if you want to fire a missile over Canadian airspace to intercept another missile.' He's got to be kidding.

I saw that on the CBC News (or Newsworld). The photos were incredible, and the story of how the man who found the beat up camera and then findiing the 2 sons, amazing. There is still good in hte world.

I don't know if was good or bad, but one thing I know for sure is it was a political budget. It's a great budget for the Liberals to run a campaign on if the opposition want to vote it down.

The same phenom afflicted other areas of the world as well, as evidenced by the BBC for example. There was just as much on the BBC World News as there was on Canada Now.

Well Stoker, I don't know what to say, except of course that I agree that it could have been more. But when I see Gen. Hillier say it's a good thing, I'll believe him, as he's a stuuborn Newfoundlander who don't seem to hold punches. Plus, Harper seemed surprised, in a good way, in the increase in defence spending. So it couldn't have been too bad. Like Army Guy said, it's a good start. Maybe if Harper wins the next election he'll do better. I'll go a step further and say that the Army will end up getting the lion's share. There have been reports that Ottawa will be concentrating on the Army, and the fact that the release of the Defence Review may indicate something like that happening.

Amen. Hopefully today's budget will help. They are saying, as of now, an additional $13 Billion over 5 years for the military. I hope it's new money and not rehashing of previous monies and committments.

An article on CTV says Martin will say no to joining the program. I wonder if McKenna's "slip" was actually meant to say to the Americans that we're in it to a point with the use of NORAD in the BMD program, while Martin can say to Canadians we're not going to join it. The ever popular intentional mixed message? I'd almost believe if I didn't think the PMO was so incompetent.

I think it confirms what I've always thought of Pettigrew: he's a strange, delusional dude who should never have been made the man to represent Canada on the international stage.

I appreciate your position Army Guy. My point was that the ordinary citizen can do very little, aside from showing their pride by shaking a soldier's hand or flying the flag or writing a letter, to change the government's shameful handling of our military. Myself for example. I live nowhere near a military base. I fly my flag, had it at half staff for the 4 brave men of the PPCLI who died in Afghanistan, for Cpl. Murphy (who is from a community about ½ an hr. from where I'm from) and for Sgt. Short and Cpl. Beerenfenger. I wrote the troops at Christmas on the DND website. Unfortunately, the general public, like the government, takes the men and women of the Forces for granted. But that doesn't mean that they have abandoned them, or don't support them, or appreciate them. You're right in that pressure should be brought on the government, but that is usually seen by the general public as out of their reach. I'm not saying it's true, and I'm not saying it's right.

Yes, and technically, she is. I see what you're saying, and in the real world you're right. In practice, the GG is responsible to the people. She's appointed by the Queen on the advice of the PM. The GG dissolves parliament on the advice of the PM, etc. But like they say, the devil is in the details, and in the details she is responsible to the Queen. I'm not sure what to think of the Commonwealth. I'm all for multi nationall institutions, but the Commonwelath appears to be stuck in neutral on many items. Too much politics and not enough substance appears to be the mantra.

I agree eureka that tradition is important. It's how we got where we are, where we came from. But being responsible to "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith", hardly seems to be responsible to all Canadians. I know it is just ceremony, but the GG can refuse to dissolve parliament, refuse to sign a law, etc in the name of the Queen. It may cause unrest and constitutional chaos, but the GG is permitted to do it. It's in the constitution. There's something wrong there.

I appreciate your experiences IMR, especially since I have never left the country, except to visit St. Pierre and Miquelon which is part of France, but that's another story. I just believe, perhaps naively, that if someone sees the Maple Leaf instead of the Stars and Stripes, they understand the difference. We have our moments. I keep going back to hating Americans vs. hating the American government. I don't recall very many media stories or teachers or politicians (with the obvious exception of those twits, Parrishand Ducros) spreading hatred towards the American citizenry. I don't believe Canadians blame or hold malice toward Americans for Iraq, or softwood lumber, or BSE, or Afghanistan, etc. I do believe they blame the President and Congress and policies of the government. And if Canadians do blame Americans for these and other things, I think it may be as simple as taking it out on who you can reach. I may be way off. Thanks for that link IMR, it was an interesting article.

Has anyone mentioned that John Turner was first elected as a MP from Québec.

I would hope you meant to say "...our own government." I don't know Army Guy. It took 9/11 for the Americans to get serious about terrorism. I agree the men and women of the Armed Forces have gotten the short end of the stick for at least 13 years. Couldn't agree more. And I agree that 7th on a spending priority list is shameful, but it is probably indicative of a way of life that has been peaceful and uneventful in a military attack or catastrophic type of way.

Well let me be the one to state the obvious: no we don't, we just happen to live next to the world's only military superpower who has a vested interest in protecting our security in order to protect it's own.

Even if Landry is the leader, or do you mean that it doesn't matter who takes over after Landry leaves? An expert on Québec politics I'm not, but I would suggest the only chance Charést would have is to strike an incredible blow against the "fiscal imbalance" and get what the PQ premiers haven't been able to get for Québec: what it thinks it deserves in the form of equal equalization (not Labrador ). With Martin in a minority situation and needing Québec to get a majority, Charést may be able to do it. Like I said, I'm not an expert, so I look forward to being corrected.

I'm not so sure Stoker. I agree that it would take an incident to get the politicians and citizenry to open their eyes, but I think when it happens (as it is bound to eventually) you'll see 2 things happen: People will ask how it could have happened and where our Armed Forces and intelligence agency were, and a demand to keep it from happening again. It's the sad reality of humankind. You don't know what you got until it's gone, you always think it can't happen to you until it does, and you tend not to want to get hurt again.

I'm surprised it got as much attention as it did, especially considering there was little discussion about PM PM's slip over our invasion of Norway in WWII instead of Normandy. I'm guessing the difference is the Norway comment was a history slip up, while the Syria comment is a poilcy issue?

I'm all for a head of state, but I think we can safley assume that we (as a country) are old enough to have one that is technically responsible to Canadians, not the Queen. It's sort of like saying that the Senate, the wasteful moneypit that it is, shouldn't be reformed or abolished because it is based on the House of Lords, in other words tradition. We should start making our own traditions.

And there's the problem isn't it? Equipment malfunctions and spending has been in the news a fair amount in the last 5-10 years, especially the Sea Kings and recently the subs. Until the human story of the Forces is told, and repeated, the public will probably remain ambivalent. Unfortunately. For clarity, here is the list (from CTV): http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Don't let Ann Coulter hear you talk like that caesar. She might not let us stay on the same continent as the US.

Well, Harper may not be able to play the "We will help Canada/US relations" card as much. Bush Peeved with Harper too? And this is bad news for Harper, and Jason Kenney. Ipsos Poll. The Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and currently have 37%, 26%, 17% respectively. Add to that, according to Ipsos, Martin's approval is 56%, while Harper has 38%.