Fixed Election Date

Wilber · January 3, 2011

I would absolutely love a few names man. Can you help me out with that?

One good reference is JFC Fuller's,The Decisive Battles of the Western World and Their influence Upon History. I don't know if it is still in print but it has been edited down to two volumes by John Terraine.

In it is quoted,

Woodrow Wilson.

"that so long as we were out there was a preponderance of neutrality, but if we joined with the Allies the world would be off the peace basis on a war basis. "It means, an attempt to reconstruct a peacetime civilization with war standards, and at the end of the war there will be no bystanders with sufficient peace standards left to work with. There will only be war standards"

Ramsay Macdonald in a letter to Wilson.

" The majority of our people welcomed America's entry into the war, but a minority, much larger than newspapers or vociferous opinion indicates, regard it not with any hostile feelings but with regret. They come to that view because a: they do not think that American military help was required in order to compel the Powers to make a reasonable peace; and b: they think that America, out of the war , would have done more for peace and good feeling than in the war, and would also have a better influence on the peace settlement."
"whilst you can have peace without victory, history shows that as a rule nations have had victory without peace."

Winston Churchill in an interview with the New York Enquirer in 1936.

"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these isms wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other lives."

Edited January 3, 2011 by Wilber

madmax · January 4, 2011

The way I understand it, a mere law is changeable at the whim of a Parliamentary majority.

As you are responding to the Harper comment.

1) Fixed Election date was set for Sept 2009

2) There was no "parlimentary majority" in Sept 2008, the year Harper shiite on his own lawn.

3) He saw political opportunism to seek a Majority.

4) The Electorate had no interest in an Election

5) That suited the Prime Minister Fine, he still wanted his majority.

6) Almost got a majority proving that Political Opportunism supersedes Principles.

That pretty much set the tone for A Prime Minister who has become a dictator within a Minority government.

Its likely the main reason why he will never see a Majority.

It is clear he cannot be trusted and has proven to be runnning the Tyrannical Dictatorship rather then the "Happy Dictatorship" of CHretian. Yet he is proving to be far more damaged goods then Chretian. It may take more years to bear this out like it did Chretain.

g_bambino · January 5, 2011

2) There was no "parlimentary majority" in Sept 2008...

Yes there was: Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The dictatorship you say Harper runs is actually the product of an opposition that allows Harper to do (mostly) as he pleases. In the absence of a backbone anywhere on the opposition benches since December 2008, the only walls Harper has hit recently have been the governor general and the Speaker of the House of Commons.