Harper needs to step down

[marksman]

I hear what you are saying and to some degree you are correct however the conservatives have already been doing things to give people more choice.

The Liberal position is that government knows best and are a proponent of bigger government. We've already seen what that leads to. Whereas the conservatives are more interested in having smaller government and giving the Canadian public more control over how to spend their tax dollars. Look to Alberta for a prime example. All of Canada should be like this.

Smaller government.

More choice of schooling, privatization of many services that are currently government run elsewhere such as beer and liquor sales, driving exams(which is private in Ontario now as well), etc, etc.

So far the Tories are the only party willing to trust Canadians to make up their own minds such as in the GST rebate cheques, tax cuts for working families and a monthly childcare benefit for parents and created a new Tax-Free Savings account program.

These options equal more choice for me and you.

Some of those options equal more choice for Canadians. I'm not saying Conservatives don't give choice. But look more closely at some of the programs they've instituted. They preferred to cut the GST rather than income taxes. Which offers more choice for Canadians? With a GST cut you've got to spend money on GST taxable stuff to get a saving. With income tax cuts you can do whatever you want with that money. You can save it, give it to a charity, spend it on stuff or sit in the street and burn it. Whether you liked Paul Martin or not in the 2006 election it was the Liberal platform that offered Canadians more choice when it came to tax cuts.

Some of the other Conservative tax "cuts" are also like that. Andrew Coyne was right to point out that many of the tax "cuts" are actually spending programs that just happen to give out their money through Revenue Canada. Tax cuts for families are good but let's not pretend that they give Canadians more choice. They only give families more choice. You only get that benefit if you've got kids or enroll your kids in sports programs. I don't have a huge problem with those types of spending programs but let's call it what it is. It's not giving Canadians more choice it's subsidizing families with kids and giving families an incentive to enroll their kids in sports programs.

With some of the spending that's been going on over the last 2 years you also might have problems saying that this Conservative government is interested in smaller government.

Liberals and Conservatives are more similar than many would like to admit. Conservatives like to say they're giving more choice but the reality doesn't always match up to the hype. Both parties have policies that give choice and both have policies that cater to certain interests.

[Mr.Canada]

Of course they are marksman, the rest is just spin. They are the only two parties who could form a government. They have to be somewhat fiscally prudent.

[PoliticalCitizen]

As for Serbia I do believe that was also in response to genocide. So just how the hell does that make them an aggessor. Kicking the ass of some tyrant who has commited crimes against humanity is far from being an aggressor in a conflict.

What do you know about the bombing of Serbia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of...g_of_Yugoslavia

China and Russia vetoed the resolution on the UN Security Council, both of which are permanent members of the Security Council and even one veto from a permanent member is enough to quash a resolution. US President Bill Clinton then spearheaded the use of force by NATO against the Milosevic government.

The only way I see it is as a crime against humanity:

- 10,000 people dead, mostly civilians

- Infrastructure of a country completely destroyed (even though the air-defense systems remained intact )

You sound like the school yard bully who goes running to the teacher after the kid he has terrorized for the last 6 months finally breaks his nose.

Using your analogy the bombing of Serbia would be equivalent of leveling the whole school with the kids in it because one of them was a bully.

Here's the chronology of the 76 days of bombings:

http://www.beograd.org.yu/cms/view.php?id=201271

SHAME !!!

I hope our country NEVER AGAIN gets involved in these execution-style military campaigns.

But then again - once USA's financial backbone is broken (which it almost is already) they'll sit quiet and fester in the pit of a recession / depression, leaving the rest of the world to live in peace (or whatever else the countries want).

Edited October 23, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[marksman]

What do you know about the bombing of Serbia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of...g_of_Yugoslavia

China and Russia vetoed the resolution on the UN Security Council, both of which are permanent members of the Security Council and even one veto from a permanent member is enough to quash a resolution. US President Bill Clinton then spearheaded the use of force by NATO against the Milosevic government.

The only way I see it is as a crime against humanity:

- 10,000 people dead, mostly civilians

- Infrastructure of a country completely destroyed (even though the air-defense systems remained intact )

Using your analogy the bombing of Serbia would be equivalent of leveling the whole school with the kids in it because one of them was a bully.

Here's the chronology of the 76 days of bombings:

http://www.beograd.org.yu/cms/view.php?id=201271

SHAME !!!

I hope our country NEVER AGAIN gets involved in these execution-style military campaigns.

But then again - once USA's financial backbone is broken (which it almost is already) they'll sit quiet and fester in the pit of a recession / depression, leaving the rest of the world to live in peace (or whatever else the countries want).

And where did you get the number 10,000 dead? And the better question is who killed them?

I've got no problem with Canada taking part in missions to protect innocent people and preventing this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Račak_massacre

from turning into this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

It's nice to say let's leave the world in peace but that assumes that the world's peaceful. It's not. This type of intervention should be done only when absolutely necessary but when it's necessary we shouldn't turn our backs on victims of crimes against humanity and genocides.

[White Doors]

WTF are you smoking?

Canada was the aggressor in WWII?

Only if you ignore the first 4+ years of the conflict where Germany overran most of Europe. Launching a counter offensive to liberate conquered nations is not being the aggressor.

As for Serbia I do believe that was also in response to genocide. So just how the hell does that make them an aggessor. Kicking the ass of some tyrant who has commited crimes against humanity is far from being an aggressor in a conflict.

You sound like the school yard bully who goes running to the teacher after the kid he has terrorized for the last 6 months finally breaks his nose.

PC was the one who inferred that there was a huge moral difference in what Canada did in Serbia compared to previous wars. My point was that there was not much difference at all. We still went to war when our country was not directly attacked. I am glad that we did. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of his attempts to vilify the Canadian forces for being in Afghanistan.

Perhaps if you spent less time tossing insults you would have better reading comprehension.

[White Doors]

And where did you get the number 10,000 dead? And the better question is who killed them?

I've got no problem with Canada taking part in missions to protect innocent people and preventing this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Račak_massacre

from turning into this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

It's nice to say let's leave the world in peace but that assumes that the world's peaceful. It's not. This type of intervention should be done only when absolutely necessary but when it's necessary we shouldn't turn our backs on victims of crimes against humanity and genocides.

He's a Russian citizen so he has a hard time viewing this conflict objectively. Canada was absolutely justified in helping t0 get rid of that murderer. The only countries who should be ashamed are the one's that were prepared to leave him in power.

[PoliticalCitizen]

And where did you get the number 10,000 dead?

The 10,000 is an official number (even Israel knows that) and only includes the victims of the NATO bombings.

And the better question is who killed them?

We killed them.

I've got no problem with Canada taking part in missions to protect innocent people and preventing this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Račak_massacre

from turning into this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

The number of people NATO killed and the amount of distruction it caused is far greater than the number of people killed by the perpetrators of genocide in Yugoslavia.

I know you, as most members of this board have been conditioned by the media not to accept the fact that NATO can be wrong. I think it goes back to the Cold War days...

It's nice to say let's leave the world in peace but that assumes that the world's peaceful. It's not. This type of intervention should be done only when absolutely necessary but when it's necessary we shouldn't turn our backs on victims of crimes against humanity and genocides.

Are we the World Police? Are we? Then where the FVCK were we during the butchering of 900,000 people in Rwanda? Where are we in Darfur? How come we haven't policed Somalia whose pirates terrorize international waters?

Let's cut the crap... NATO bombing Serbia while both Russia and China were against it was nothing more than a brutal show of force by USA (primarily) and a spit in the face of Slavic nations... so Georgia was just a little payback...

Edited October 24, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[Alta4ever]

The 10,000 is an official number (even Israel knows that) and only includes the victims of the NATO bombings.

We killed them.

The number of people NATO killed and the amount of distruction it caused is far greater than the number of people killed by the perpetrators of genocide in Yugoslavia.

I know you, as most members of this board have been conditioned by the media not to accept the fact that NATO can be wrong. I think it goes back to the Cold War days...

Are we the World Police? Are we? Then where the FVCK were we during the butchering of 900,000 people in Rwanda? Where are we in Darfur? How come we haven't policed Somalia whose pirates terrorize international waters?

Let's cut the crap... NATO bombing Serbia while both Russia and China were against it was nothing more than a brutal show of force by USA (primarily) and a spit in the face of Slavic nations... so Georgia was just a little payback...

Language please......

In Rawanda, was hardly any troops, they did not have the numbers to stop it, they barely had enough to man the post.

[PoliticalCitizen]

PC was the one who inferred that there was a huge moral difference in what Canada did in Serbia compared to previous wars. My point was that there was not much difference at all. We still went to war when our country was not directly attacked. I am glad that we did. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of his attempts to vilify the Canadian forces for being in Afghanistan.

Perhaps if you spent less time tossing insults you would have better reading comprehension.

The general attitude of North American population is the problem. You were told so many times that you actually believe you're ENTITLED to attack and destroy other countries. I was hoping this blatant disregard for sovereignty of other nations and supremacy of "national interests" is only prevalent in the good old USA.

Oh well...

We gotta thank God Harper didn't have a majority in 2003... otherwise Iraq would have been on the bloody list of our war crimes...

[PoliticalCitizen]

Language please......

In Rawanda, was hardly any troops, they did not have the numbers to stop it, they barely had enough to man the post.

And how many troops were there in Serbia?

ZERO !!!

Because NATO troops were SCARED to go into Serbia - they would have been killed like never before. But dropping bombs on civilians from high in the sky - why not...

I Rwanda the hutus were using machetes - no firearms... they could have been stopped without planes or tanks...

[Alta4ever]

And how many troops were there in Serbia?

ZERO !!!

Because NATO troops were SCARED to go into Serbia - they would have been killed like never before. But dropping bombs on civilians from high in the sky - why not...

I Rwanda the hutus were using machetes - no firearms... they could have been stopped without planes or tanks...

I would think that you would understand something about the hord. If you are that out numbered it doesn't matter what weapon you have you will lose.

The link that you posted about where and when bombs fell, showed a lot of collateral damage but the civilian wasn't the target. Most of the targets where comand, control and communication. Some targets were probably miss identified.

That being said NATO and the UN did nothing to help the situtation in serbia, there was a lot of back ground politics, and very little peace to keep, but hindsight is 20-20.

[normanchateau]

The Liberal position is that government knows best and are a proponent of bigger government. We've already seen what that leads to. Whereas the conservatives are more interested in having smaller government

If the Conservatives are interested in smaller government, why are they spending more than the Liberals?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features...fe-791cf25cc9de

"There's a real sense of disappointment among the small-c grassroots conservative Reformers that are out there," said Gerry Nicholls, who worked with Harper at the National Citizens Coalition and is now a columnist and frequent critic of his old boss. "Harper's betrayed the principles that he once stood for."

Consider this: The last Liberal government budget was for the fiscal year that ended on March 31, 2006. In that budget, government spending, excluding payments on the debt, grew by $22.7 billion or about 16 per cent compared to the fiscal year ending in 2003.

The next three budgets were Harper's. Using the same three-year comparison, program spending under the Harper's Conservatives is up $46.8 billion or about 29 per cent.

Yet Harper supporters continue to claim that Harper is a fiscal conservative who is interested in small government.

If Harper had merely maintained program spending at the levels he inherited in 2006, he could have dramatically lowered income tax rates. Instead he saw the surplus as an opportunity to increase government spending.

[marksman]

The 10,000 is an official number (even Israel knows that) and only includes the victims of the NATO bombings.

Source? From what I've read that number doesn't seem accurate but I'm happy to read your sources.

Are we the World Police? Are we? Then where the FVCK were we during the butchering of 900,000 people in Rwanda? Where are we in Darfur? How come we haven't policed Somalia whose pirates terrorize international waters?

No we're not the world police. But we now live in a world where we can get accurate information about the horrible things that happen in this world. We don't need to police every jaywalking infraction in the world but if people are being ethnically cleansed and nothing is being done to stop it then the whole world is to blame. We can't keep turning our backs on the innocent when they're being slaughtered.

We should've been in Rwanda to stop the killings. We should be in Darfur. But our failings in Rwanda and Darfur don't change the fact that it's a good thing when genocide is stopped.

Let's cut the crap... NATO bombing Serbia while both Russia and China were against it was nothing more than a brutal show of force by USA (primarily) and a spit in the face of Slavic nations... so Georgia was just a little payback...

The only people spitting in anyone's face were those who were killing people in those Slavic nations and those supporting it. That support came from people vocally supporting and from those who wanted a do nothing approach.

The fact that you think Georgia was payback shows exactly how much you value human life. You don't care about people. You care about a political agenda. You've got no right to lecture others about what's right and wrong when you support death and destruction.

The general attitude of North American population is the problem. You were told so many times that you actually believe you're ENTITLED to attack and destroy other countries. I was hoping this blatant disregard for sovereignty of other nations and supremacy of "national interests" is only prevalent in the good old USA.

The traditional notion of sovereignty is slowly dying. We're approaching a point where countries can no longer do whatever they want within their borders without regards to the consequences. If a nation is unwilling to protect its people from horrors like genocide then it forfeits its right to sovereignty.

We gotta thank God Harper didn't have a majority in 2003... otherwise Iraq would have been on the bloody list of our war crimes...

Going into Iraq at that time and in that way was a mistake. But you won't catch me mourning the fact that a regime that supported torture and ethnic cleansing is gone.

[capricorn]

Going into Iraq at that time and in that way was a mistake. But you won't catch me mourning the fact that a regime that supported torture and ethnic cleansing is gone.

I'm certain Iraqis are grateful that Saddam and his despotic sons can no longer throw their critics through giant shredders.

[capricorn]

Yet Harper supporters continue to claim that Harper is a fiscal conservative who is interested in small government.

You'll find that there are plenty of Harper supporters who are unhappy about his Liberal style spending. Me, for example. I'm hoping it's a temporary aberration.

Canadians are addicted to large government and bureaucracies. Reducing their size must be done incrementally or they'll fall into conniptions. Harper understands that. Dismantling the gun registry would be a good first step.

[White Doors]

The general attitude of North American population is the problem. You were told so many times that you actually believe you're ENTITLED to attack and destroy other countries. I was hoping this blatant disregard for sovereignty of other nations and supremacy of "national interests" is only prevalent in the good old USA.

Oh well...

We gotta thank God Harper didn't have a majority in 2003... otherwise Iraq would have been on the bloody list of our war crimes...

A list of our war crimes eh? And you emigrated here from Russia?

LOL

[independent]

You'll find that there are plenty of Harper supporters who are unhappy about his Liberal style spending. Me, for example. I'm hoping it's a temporary aberration.

Canadians are addicted to large government and bureaucracies. Reducing their size must be done incrementally or they'll fall into conniptions. Harper understands that. Dismantling the gun registry would be a good first step.

Key difference between Liberals and Harper. Both the Liberals and Harper have their list of what they feel is important. Harper is very focused on what he wants to get done and will overspend if need be too get there. The Liberals main focus has been on not overspending and prioritize spending according too what they feel has too be done. Previous governments have come to terms with the high cost of imprisonment and have found ways to control those costs. Harper will be much more intent at achieving his goal of being tough on crime(regardless of cost). (The way I see things) There is misconception that Harper's low priority on social programs means less spending. He wants to have a military presence in the North. His spending habits will just be focused on different priorities.

Did Harper ever come out and say I am intent on making government smaller. The Liberals came in and were intent on controling spending. You should be comparing Harper too Mulroney style spending.

Edited October 24, 2008 by independent

[Argus]

The 10,000 is an official number (even Israel knows that) and only includes the victims of the NATO bombings.

We killed them.

Drivel. Russian fairy tales.

Let's cut the crap... NATO bombing Serbia while both Russia and China were against it was nothing more than a brutal show of force by USA (primarily) and a spit in the face of Slavic nations... so Georgia was just a little payback...

Russia and China are third-world thugocracies, and no one but their brainwashed citizenry would ever consider a single thing they do or have ever done, including voting at the UN, as having even passing acquaintance with ethical values or morality.

[normanchateau]

Canadians are addicted to large government and bureaucracies. Reducing their size must be done incrementally or they'll fall into conniptions. Harper understands that. Dismantling the gun registry would be a good first step.

Harper has now been responsible for three budgets: 2006, 2007 and 2008. Relative to the previous three years, program spending under Harper is up $46.8 billion or about 29 per cent.

Yet you claim Harper understands that reducing the size of government must be incremental. Harper's budgets have increased spending, not reduced it incrementally.

If the Liberals were in power and increased spending, I suspect you would call it what it is...increased spending. Yet when Harper does it, his supporters view it as evidence that he knows that reductions must be incremental.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Source? From what I've read that number doesn't seem accurate but I'm happy to read your sources.

I couldn't find any western source quoting that number but I think it comprises the number of the people that died as a result of the destroyed infrastructure.

No we're not the world police. But we now live in a world where we can get accurate information about the horrible things that happen in this world. We don't need to police every jaywalking infraction in the world but if people are being ethnically cleansed and nothing is being done to stop it then the whole world is to blame. We can't keep turning our backs on the innocent when they're being slaughtered.

We should've been in Rwanda to stop the killings. We should be in Darfur. But our failings in Rwanda and Darfur don't change the fact that it's a good thing when genocide is stopped.

You're contradicting yourself.

If we're not the world police - why did we bomb Yugoslavia?

If we are the world police - who gave us the mandate and why were we not responsible for the tragedies in Rwanda, Darfur and Somalia, all of which could have been prevented using a small fraction of the force used against Yugoslavia?

The only people spitting in anyone's face were those who were killing people in those Slavic nations and those supporting it. That support came from people vocally supporting and from those who wanted a do nothing approach.

The fact that you think Georgia was payback shows exactly how much you value human life. You don't care about people. You care about a political agenda. You've got no right to lecture others about what's right and wrong when you support death and destruction.

Your attempt to vilify proves the inability of a westerner to even ADMIT their country and its biggest ally may have been wrong.

Contrary to NATO's brutal destruction of the whole country's infrastructure and at least 1000 civilians killed directly by the airstrikes Russia very quckly and effectively disabled Georgia's military and gave the 2 regions their chance for independence. The war lasted 1 week (as opposed to 76 days of bombings) and there were less than 100 Georgian civilians dead.

The traditional notion of sovereignty is slowly dying. We're approaching a point where countries can no longer do whatever they want within their borders without regards to the consequences. If a nation is unwilling to protect its people from horrors like genocide then it forfeits its right to sovereignty.

So you'd be OK then with the Russian army coming in to help the oppressed natives in Caledonia?

Going into Iraq at that time and in that way was a mistake. But you won't catch me mourning the fact that a regime that supported torture and ethnic cleansing is gone.

What about Afghanistan? That wasn't a mistake?

[Argus]

Key difference between Liberals and Harper. Both the Liberals and Harper have their list of what they feel is important. Harper is very focused on what he wants to get done and will overspend if need be too get there. The Liberals main focus has been on not overspending and prioritize spending according too what they feel has too be done.

Drivel. The Liberals didn't spend money as long as there was no opposition and they were riding high in the polls. The instant that situation changed they went on a spending spree. During the election, Dion made over $80 billion in promises, something like twenty times more than Harper.

Previous governments have come to terms with the high cost of imprisonment and have found ways to control those costs.

LOL Yeah, by letting criminals back onto the streets as rapidly as possible. This is why 80% of those arrested now were previously released from prison.

[PoliticalCitizen]

I'm certain Iraqis are grateful that Saddam and his despotic sons can no longer throw their critics through giant shredders.

You mean the ones that are still alive?

Or the 1,200,000 DEAD as a result of the 8-year-long (so far) war?

[PoliticalCitizen]

A list of our war crimes eh? And you emigrated here from Russia?

LOL

What? You'd never admit that the actions of our military can be described in such a way?

Well, they are... obviously not by our media...

[PoliticalCitizen]

Drivel.

Drivel? That's the best argument your hate-blinded brain can come up with?

Russian fairy tales.

Fairy tales?

Oh, North Americans surely love those... Let's take a look at the most popular ones:

FAIRY TALE 1: Bedouins that jumped off of the backs of the camels straight into the cockpits of commercial airliners and landed them into the windows of 2 skyscrapers, which caused them (and another unrelated building) to collapse in a controlled-demolition way.

FAIRY TALE 2: An evil Santa Claus exists in the Middle East called Bin Laden. Noone has seen him but everyone believes he lives somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan. His evil little elves make bombs that go off every once in a while everywhere in the world. From time to time he records messages so that people won't forget he knows who's been good or bad.

FAIRY TALE 3: Evil Saddam prepares weapons of mass destruction to kill us all, starting with Israel. He has NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL weapons. Clearly he and his whole country should be nuked to form one huge crater.

FAIRY TALE 4 (NOT VERY ORIGINAL): Evil IRAN is building NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Let's kill them all.

Russia and China are third-world thugocracies, and no one but their brainwashed citizenry would ever consider a single thing they do or have ever done, including voting at the UN, as having even passing acquaintance with ethical values or morality.

Surely you can't be an idiot, dead wrong or even biased.

Let's abolish the UN - it's useless anyway. Bush's, Condy's, McCain's, Palin's and Harper's gut feeling about a certain regime or country should be considered a GOD-GIVEN COMMAND TO ALL DEFENDERS OF DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM, AND... what else was there... oh yeah - AMERICA!

Edited October 24, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[normanchateau]

FAIRY TALE 1: Bedouins that jumped off of the backs of the camels straight into the cockpits of commercial airliners and landed them into the windows of 2 skyscrapers, which caused them (and another unrelated building) to collapse in a controlled-demolition way?

OK, I'll bite. Who do you think orchestrated it?

Let me guess. Was it the International Zionist Conspiracy?