Afghanistan

[Wilber]

BUT, alot of Canadians don't think we should be there and that Harper never really thought the pros and the cons through and so Canadians want this for their soldiers, to know we respect and mourn another loss of life. If the the Feds refuse to do it, perhaps the provinces will take on the duty and I'm sure private citizens who have flag poles will also lower the flag as a personal rememberance of THAT soldier.

So it is a political statement. We are only talking about the flag on the Peace Tower here. The idea of only lowering that flag on Remembrance Day to honour one group of Canadians and no other is about as exclusive as you can get and appeals to me the more I think about it. As for others "taking over the duty", many local municipalities have have followed this practice when a soldier, police officer or fire fighter from that area has lost their lives in the line of duty but I guess you haven't been paying attention.

[jdobbin]

So it is a political statement.

I have no problem coming up with a coherent policy on lowering the flag. If we ever get into a conflict where someone dies every day, it would be permanently down.

Many people don't understand the federal policy now or the days when the flag is down. This debate is not exclusive to Canada. It happens in the U.S. and Britain as well. Anyone remember the wave of anger when the Queen's flag flew high when Diana died?

The problem for the Tories is when they say they want to make sure all soldiers are honoured on one day but then politically attempt to downplay deaths throughout the rest of the year. The public has consistently resisted this and they will line the highways to mourn the deaths of soldiers.

So, make a policy on lowering the flag to half mast but don't try to limit coverage of soldier's deaths or how people mourn.

[charter.rights]

I have no problem coming up with a coherent policy on lowering the flag. If we ever get into a conflict where someone dies every day, it would be permanently down.

Many people don't understand the federal policy now or the days when the flag is down. This debate is not exclusive to Canada. It happens in the U.S. and Britain as well. Anyone remember the wave of anger when the Queen's flag flew high when Diana died?

The problem for the Tories is when they say they want to make sure all soldiers are honoured on one day but then politically attempt to downplay deaths throughout the rest of the year. The public has consistently resisted this and they will line the highways to mourn the deaths of soldiers.

So, make a policy on lowering the flag to half mast but don't try to limit coverage of soldier's deaths or how people mourn.

It doesn't matter what the policy WAS. The Bill was passed by a majority in Parliament. It is now in effect, the law.

[Argus]

Look why don't you guys be honest just for once. Canadians were horrified to read that George Bush forbade any information about their fallen troops. We in Canada said at least we are not afraid to acknowlege those who have died. The first thing that Mr. Bush's little pastsy Harper did was to stop the lowering of the flag. Just how stupid do you think we Canadian voter are?

Do we use you as an example?

Canadian voters are, in fact, extremely stupid, and almost totally ignorant about what goes on in their own country. Most shouldn't even be voting, for their votes are the votes of ignorance.

We NEVER lowered the flags for soldiers deaths, not in wartime, not during peacekeeping, until 4 Canadian soldiers were killed accidentally by Americans. At that time Chretien directed the flag be lowered at half staff as a shot against the Americans he despised (like you do). It was not to mourn the soldiers, it was a jab at the Americans. Like most of the Left, Chretien didn't give a damn what happened to soldiers, what shape their equipment was in, or whether they lived or died.

After that, he lowered it sometimes, to help deniability- so he could say he didn't order it done just to snipe at the Americans. But even then it wasn't tradition.

We want the flag lowered, we want to honour out troops dying in foreign places

.

Frankly, I find that hard to believe. People as far over on the Left as you are tend to dismiss soldiers as goons and killers. I doubt you give a crap about them.

[Argus]

The Conservatives prove once again that they don't give a damn about democracy. The Bill passed and Harper promptly stated they wouldn't do it. It was a democratic decision that must be adhered to. Whether anyone likes it or not is moot.

Bullshit. Either they're the government or they're not. If the Liberals and NDP want to make the decisions let them force an election. Until that time they get an opinion, and nothing more.

Personally I agree with it.

All the more reasurance that it was a dumb idea.

[Argus]

Let's put this in perspective. Under Chretien, Canada spent 1.0% of GDP on military spending versus 1.2% under Harper. Under Trudeau, it was 2.0%. Even as a function of % federal government expenditures on military spending, Trudeau far outspent Harper, Mulroney and Chretien:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=141640

God, the ignorance.

The great majority of costs associated with the military is on staffing - ie, salaries and benefits.

Well guess what? It costs a lot less for a 55,000 military than an 83,000 military. Surprised? In fact, I think Trudeau started with closer to 100,000. In any event, the military is so small now, after successive Quebec governments in power, that it does indeed cost less.

[charter.rights]

Bullshit. Either they're the government or they're not. If the Liberals and NDP want to make the decisions let them force an election. Until that time they get an opinion, and nothing more.

All the more reasurance that it was a dumb idea.

"Government" is the entire process including democratic votes in the House. When a Bill passes it becomes somewhat of a law. The Conservatives neither have a majority in the House nor rule a dictatorship even they they act like they do on both counts.

[jdobbin]

It doesn't matter what the policy WAS. The Bill was passed by a majority in Parliament. It is now in effect, the law.

A motion doesn't have the same power as legislation. In other words, it can be ignored by the government.

[Army Guy]

I think most Canadians would agree with most of what you said and the Cons keep saying that they are looking after the vets when they return so I can't see any reason for any of the vets to complain by what the government keeps saying how well they are looking after the military.

The cons have introduced many bills that start to address the needs of our soldiers and vets, and progress is being made...more than any previous governments anyways...That being said, we have always had soldiers and vets, and these problems are not something new, just that past governments and the average Canadian have choose to ignore them...

BUT, alot of Canadians don't think we should be there and that Harper never really thought the pros and the cons through

Lets not forget that most Canadians approved of this mission when it was first conceived, and has since changed thier minds...So most Canadians must also take a share in that burden also...Canada has invested alot into this mission in regards to tax dollars, time and effort....it would be a shame to cut and run because of a few dollars....it's kind of ironic that it is our soldiers that have paid the highest price, and they still remain commited, and the just because majority thinks it's not a worthy cause does not mean that it is the correct one or what is best for our country..

and so Canadians want this for their soldiers, to know we respect and mourn another loss of life.

I don't think it is for the soldiers, it's so that someone can piont and say "see" we do something for our dead....raising and lower a flag....if only it was that simple....But what we are forgeting that there is plenty of other areas that require urgent attention that would really address the "see" what we do for our fallen, such as increasing death benifits, looking after these families that have been crushed by thier loss, instead we had to pass a bill on this trival problem....that resolves what exactly ?

[GostHacked]

Argus

Canadian voters are, in fact, extremely stupid, and almost totally ignorant about what goes on in their own country. Most shouldn't even be voting, for their votes are the votes of ignorance.

Replace Canadians with any other country, Americans, British, French, German, Japanese, Korean, ect ect ect. and you will find the same results, there is plenty of ignorance out there.

[Argus]

Argus

Replace Canadians with any other country, Americans, British, French, German, Japanese, Korean, ect ect ect. and you will find the same results, there is plenty of ignorance out there.

I don't claim we're unique. But it just seems to me that something went astray on our road to liberal democracy. Look at the giants who used to rule in the United States, for example, and compare them to the intellectual and moral pygmies who scramble for sound bites under the hot lights of television today. It's really no different in Canada or Europe. What the population cares to take an interest in is usually a passing fancy, or something superficial. Most couldn't be bothered to delve beneath the surface to understand the true complexities of a given question. I'm sure most Frenchmen know a lot more about their President's pretty wife than they do about the problems of their economy.

[AngusThermopyle]

Unbelievable ignorance, really.... It is a war, not a peace-keeping mission! Really.

I agree, unbelievable ignorance.

Anyone who knows anything at all about military matters knows that the whole concept of "Peace Keeping" is nothing more than a feel good fantasy dreamed up by the Liberals.

Many have said it before but I guess it needs to be repeated.

There is no such thing as "Peace Keeping". If you have peace then peace exists and does not have to be "kept". If you do not have peace then you need to make it. If you have peace and some party tries to disturb that peace then you must make them stop, by force, with weapons. No other solution works, period.

You are right about one thing though, it is a war. A war fully sanctioned by both the U.N. and NATO, of which bodies we are full members.

So is your solution one that involves renouncing both our U.N. and NATO membership?

When a Bill passes it becomes somewhat of a law.

And that statement is "somewhat" meaningless and false.

Edited April 4, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[normanchateau]

Well guess what? It costs a lot less for a 55,000 military than an 83,000 military. Surprised? In fact, I think Trudeau started with closer to 100,000.

Thank you for acknowledging that Trudeau spent a greater percentage of Canada's GDP and a greater percentage of federal expenditures on military spending than either Mulroney or Harper.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=141640

[Argus]

Thank you for acknowledging that Trudeau spent a greater percentage of Canada's GDP and a greater percentage of federal expenditures on military spending than either Mulroney or Harper.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=141640

It takes time to lay off 30,000+ people. So yeah, he had to pay higher salary costs while he did it. I don't think you have much of a point, though.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Argus

[Wilber]

I have no problem coming up with a coherent policy on lowering the flag. If we ever get into a conflict where someone dies every day, it would be permanently down.

Many people don't understand the federal policy now or the days when the flag is down. This debate is not exclusive to Canada. It happens in the U.S. and Britain as well. Anyone remember the wave of anger when the Queen's flag flew high when Diana died?

The problem for the Tories is when they say they want to make sure all soldiers are honoured on one day but then politically attempt to downplay deaths throughout the rest of the year. The public has consistently resisted this and they will line the highways to mourn the deaths of soldiers.

So, make a policy on lowering the flag to half mast but don't try to limit coverage of soldier's deaths or how people mourn.

This is precisely why I like the idea of Remembrance Day only. The policy and reasons are cut and dried so there is no debate or controversy over whether we should or should not depending on which way the wind blows.

As I read some of the posts on this issue I have serious questions as to whether some of the posters really want to pay their respects or are just using it as a platform for political protest or political hay. I think they should ask that question and be honest with themselves because this is a subject that deserves better.

[Army Guy]

Thank you for acknowledging that Trudeau spent a greater percentage of Canada's GDP and a greater percentage of federal expenditures on military spending than either Mulroney or Harper.

I not sure what your piont is either, try not and make trudeau out to be the hero... but he is actually the one Canadian in our entire history that has done the most damage to our military....during Trudeaus reign of power (terror)the armed forces, went from 110,000 to 78,000 and his great spending spree was'nt until 1978 because so much damage had already been done....

trudeau

[normanchateau]

I don't think you have much of a point, though.

I don't think you like my point but apparently you do agree that the National Post figures are correct.

[M.Dancer]

In the reserves in the early 80s we were asked to turn out without pay (cause their quota had been reached in October) and go on exercises with evn blank ammunition....the old joke about soldiers going BANG BANG BANG was certainly true. Although I never saw any armoured guys going tank tank tank.... we did formation training on imaginary Grizzleys.

[Wilber]

"Government" is the entire process including democratic votes in the House. When a Bill passes it becomes somewhat of a law. The Conservatives neither have a majority in the House nor rule a dictatorship even they they act like they do on both counts.

Not so, Government is the PM and Cabinet. The House does not govern, it can only restrict or confirm the actions of the Government. There is no such thing as somewhat a law, either it is or it isn't. Laws are not optional. The only way any Government can be a dictatorship is if Parliament allows it to be one and that is no more true than in the case of a minority government. The Government must govern regardless of the actions of the House. The opposition doesn't have that responsibility.

[Alta4ever]

Nevertheless, there was a vote taken and the Bill passed. Now the government is obligated to follow the requirement.

Military spending is relative. The Conservatives are hawkish and want to find ways to exercise the troops. By jumping into conflict (where most Canadians democratically disagree) they must have equipment and the budget to go out and kill people, and put our young men and women in harm's way. As far as I am concerned we have no business being in Afghanistan, in a war with people we have nothing against. If were were there as part of a NATO or UN peace-keeping effort that would be one thing, but the Armed Forces are there to kill for land and resources. Russia couldn't do it. The US couldn't do it. Perhaps we are just there because it appease those who think that killing is the answer to the world's problems?

Is this really what you think our elected officals should be doing, arguing over how a flag should be flown over the peace tower? I sure don't. They should be discussing matters on running the country, lowering the debt, and legislation to make the streets safer. Arguing and passing bills over how to fly a flag is not the MPS jobs, it is pure political partisan ship and the opposition parties should be ashamed. IF had been the conservatives introducing this motion then I would still feel the same.

[normanchateau]

They should be discussing matters on running the country, lowering the debt, and legislation to make the streets safer.

Then why did Harper think in December, 2006, that "re-visiting" the issue of same-sex marriage was an important use of his time? Were Canadians in turmoil because lesbians could marry? Is lowering the flag to honour Canadian heroes less important to Harper than removing a lesbian's legally bestowed right to marry?

[Alta4ever]

Then why did Harper think in December, 2006, that "re-visiting" the issue of same-sex marriage was an important use of his time? Were Canadians in turmoil because lesbians could marry? Is lowering the flag to honour Canadian heroes less important to Harper than removing a lesbian's legally bestowed right to marry?

He made a promise to the people of this country to revisit same sex marriage he did and its done. This flag issue has been pure political rhetoric, from a party that has proved it doesn't care about our solders.

[normanchateau]

He made a promise to the people of this country to revisit same sex marriage he did and its done.

He made a promise not to revisit income trusts but he did and its done. At the time, he claimed that it was in the best interests of Canada even though it meant breaking his promise. Was it in the best interests of Canada to keep his promise to try to take away a lesbian's right to marry. Which promise was more stupid?

[jbg]

He made a promise not to revisit income trusts but he did and its done.

When huge companies paying large amount of taxes were about to redo themselves as income trusts, he had no choice. Context, my friend.

[Wilber]

He made a promise not to revisit income trusts but he did and its done. At the time, he claimed that it was in the best interests of Canada even though it meant breaking his promise. Was it in the best interests of Canada to keep his promise to try to take away a lesbian's right to marry. Which promise was more stupid?

Do the promises to dump the GST and Free Trade have to be brought up again? Which promise was more stupid?