Why Harper Should Be P.M.

[shelphs]

I don t think Harper is up to anything as far as attacking other countries...we simply do not and will never have the manpower to do

any such thing...the build up is two fold first to defend Canada...including our Artic.....if our national security is threatened we have to have the modern weapons...ie Surface to air Missiles....Modern fighter aircraft...modern well armed ships...and a well armed Ground Force...........we don t need alot of military....Canada only has 30 million or so people so we can never be on a par with the U.S. but we can heavily arm what we have so we can protect Canada against any threat...........other Countries will take us more seriously...........Unfortunately i was in Europe last year in Britain and i was talking to some people and one guy made a joke.." oh you guys have a military?" he meant no harm but if that is the impression the rest of the world has of us...what does that say about Canada.....the Americans think we only care about two things Beer and Hockey....Canada has to have an effective powerful military otherwise we should stay off the world stage stay home and sip our Timmys..drink our beer and watch Hockey!

I am not concerned with us attacking another country. That is not my contention. What I'm talking about is our culture. And the reasons you have mentioned for an increased military are based on fear. "...defend Canada..." "...national security is threatened..." "...heavily arm what we have so we can protect Canada against any threat..."

Defend Canada. Are we in danger? The simple suggestion that we are begins to breed fear, and a culture of fear increases the vulnerability of a populous to be manipulated - as psychology teaches us. What happened to diplomacy? And your one comment: "...other countries will take us more seriously...", is very worrying, as if physical might is the only way to earn respect.

A country does not need a great and powerful military to contribute on the world stage, and a country that invests heavily into their military will be much more inclined to make use of it.

To conclude: the reasons for a military are supported by a culture of fear - an irrational one, which is even worse than justified fear, for unjustified fear is simply unnecessary - and increased investment into the military increase the likelihood of resorting to physical force instead of diplomatic prowess. We should stay focused on the latter.

Edited September 21, 2008 by shelphs

[shelphs]

Actually, much of the equipment we are getting will HELP with peace keeping. C17s, C130Js, C27Js (hopefully) Chinooks, tanks, heavily armoured vehicles, supply ships (hopefully), can all be used to assist in peacekeeping as well as SAR and natural disasters at home and abroad. . As an example, just look at what the HMCS St. John's is doing and what the HMCS Ville de Quebec just finished doing. Weapons of war like this can be very useful for keeping peace. Canada is one of a few nations that tries to keep peace and order in the world. All these tools will help us to do this.

Yes, these items can be used to keep the peace, however, considering the Harper government's past record of misleading the public, I question the Conservatives true motive for increased spending of the military. What they say is not what they think.

check out these links to see how they have mislead in the past.

The sources for each video are cited, so please confirm the context of the videos and articles presented therein for yourself. It's alarming how anyone can support the Conservatives knowing their past deceptions, esp. considering that their deceptions are centered around issues very important to Canadians - issues they try to make people think they care about or are trying to help improve.

[Riverwind]

To conclude: the reasons for a military are supported by a culture of fear - an irrational one, which is even worse than justified fear, for unjustified fear is simply unnecessary - and increased investment into the military increase the likelihood of resorting to physical force instead of diplomatic prowess. We should stay focused on the latter.

Russia is hardly a trustworthy neighbor and represents a real risk if the artic ice melts as predicted. The international communitity will do nothing to help us.

[August1991]

“If a country wants to be taken seriously in the world, it must have the capacity to act. It’s that simple,” Harper said Monday at the Halifax Armoury, joined by Defence Minister Peter MacKay. “Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player. You’re the one chattering on the sideline that everyone smiles at, but no one listens to.”

The difference between a man and a boy? The cost of their toys.

Most Canadians, like Americans and South Americans, are isolationists. Most Americans on both continents live in peace and have no need for a large army. If the outside world wishes to engage in war, that is not our business.

Harper will have a hard case to justify to French and English Canadians why we should buy four large airplanes rather than spend the money on day care. For the price of the aircraft, we could have day care for all young children in Canada.

If I were Dion or Layton, I would ask this pointed question and turn my whole campaign on it.

It's a fundamental question of collective choice.

Edited September 21, 2008 by August1991

[wulf42]

The difference between a man and a boy? The cost of their toys.

Most Canadians, like Americans and South Americans, are isolationists. Most Americans on both continents live in peace and have no need for a large army. If the outside world wishes to engage in war, that is not our business.

Its our business if they want to engage in war with us!..............Russia wouldn t hesitate one second in taking Canada the only reason they don t is because Europe and the U.S. will stop them cold! we have to be strong enough to protect ourselves and not the Americans do it...otherwise we might as well become Americans and join with them!

Edited September 21, 2008 by wulf42

[Who's Doing What?]

The difference between a man and a boy? The cost of their toys.

Most Canadians, like Americans and South Americans, are isolationists. Most Americans on both continents live in peace and have no need for a large army. If the outside world wishes to engage in war, that is not our business.

Harper will have a hard case to justify to French and English Canadians why we should buy four large airplanes rather than spend the money on day care. For the price of the aircraft, we could have day care for all young children in Canada.

If I were Dion or Layton, I would ask this pointed question and turn my whole campaign on it.

It's a fundamental question of collective choice.

Whoa, I thought we had daycare. Y'know the $100 a month cure all.

[Keepitsimple]

Yes that pesky Charter of Rights is a real impediment to conservative policy isn't it?

The fact that conservatives think anyone needs rehab for cannabis just reinforces how out of touch with reality they really are. That's like putting someone in rehab for a cofffee "addiction".

How is this idea any different than forcing someone into REHAB over their use of alcohol or tobacco, or fatty foods for that matter? Who gets to decide who is within their rights as a responsible user, and who must be forced by the state into a re-education camp? I thought conservatives were supposed be in favour of the government not having this kind of power. The problem is Harper is not a real conservative , he is some kind of weird paternalistic authoritarian dictator, who stole the conservative name to cover up his REFORM party fundamentalism. Bible thumpers on a mission. Wolf in sheeps clothing?? Reform party Theo-con in a blue suit(or sweater vest).

Views such as yours allow people to ruin their lives and rot themselves from the inside out....an absolute lack of compassion. Of COURSE tokers are not going to be forced into rehab....but violent or destitute chronic users of mind-killing drugs like heroin or crack should be. Letting someone kill themselves because they can't help themselves or repeatedly committing criminal and sometimes violent acts to fuel their habit may resonate with Libertarians and the Left - but it is not the Conservative way. Compassionate Conservatism.

[DrGreenthumb]

Views such as yours allow people to ruin their lives and rot themselves from the inside out....an absolute lack of compassion. Of COURSE tokers are not going to be forced into rehab....but violent or destitute chronic users of mind-killing drugs like heroin or crack should be. Letting someone kill themselves because they can't help themselves or repeatedly committing criminal and sometimes violent acts to fuel their habit may resonate with Libertarians and the Left - but it is not the Conservative way. Compassionate Conservatism.

So basically what you are saying is that we should have compassion for hard core addicts of hard drugs, by forcing them into rehab.

I could have some sympathy for the position that a forced temporary stay in a detox centre to help them get past the physical dependancy stage may help some of them, nobody aspires to become a drug addict.

I also want to make clear that you are saying nobody is advocating rehab for tokers, so you are admitting that the conservative policy towards cannabis users is PURELY PUNITIVE. So again please explain how locking up people who use or grow as little as one cannabis plant is going to have any positive effect for anyone??

why should we be punished for what ammounts to a personal choice?