It's All About Harper and the CPC.

[monty16]

There is an imminent danger of Canada leaning too far with the US and it's politics. We are different and we need to maintain that difference by maintaining our distance. I'm fully convinced that the US is now on the slippery slope of thinking it can dominate the world with it's military might. Yet it's become obvious in the last 10 or 20 years that military might is going to take a back seat to economic might. Remember who said, 'if you're not with us then you're against us', or words to that effect.

Can we be neither, 'with the US' or 'against the US'? Can se continue to be what Canada used to represent to the world? Can we choose to proudly display the maple leaf on our backpacks without fear? Should we even want to?

The question is, will the US allow the natural progression of the changes to the world that are happening. Will it still exert it's military might when it can no longer compete with economic might. And then, how will small countries or even unknown entities fight back against US aggression?

And the big question is: Will Canada be so aligned with the US by that time that we will be seen as just a part of the US? It seems that Harper and his CPC see no danger in doing that.

Is that what Canadians want?

Opinions?

[Michael Hardner]

Do you have a link or something specific we can discuss here ?

[monty16]

Michael, No I don't have a link and I'm still having difficulties posting links for some reason. However, if you are demanding one because of forum rules to supply one, I'll go to the trouble of digging one up. My opinion that Canada should distance itself from the US is not a unique opinion though, it's frequently voiced by Canadians who fear the consequences of not doing so. Both in consequences relating to our physical safety and for our economic wellbeing.

We all remember the softwood lumber blackmail attempts by the US. Let that be a reference to a link for a start. Even though I consider the threat of military action against us by some small defeated country or some unknown entity, to be the largest current threat.

And I have another motive which I will discuss with you privately if you request it. It's something you will immediately understand and to which I'm willing to take a chance that you will remain discreet.

[Michael Hardner]

No need to message me directly - just post a link. You've touched on a few topics such as softwood lumber and military aggression so any one will do.

[guyser]

Another bash America thread . Good job, how many is this now.

The problem with this thread specifically is its all vague.

Leaning too far with the US? How sa? How are we leaning with them?

What did Canada represent to the world.

Your problem is simple, you dont want to define anything in order to bash anyone with conherent thoughts.

Have fun, but this one is dumb.

[overthere]

I don't know what you are talking about.

Finally we have something in common.

I reckon it is clear that US-Canada relations have been quite strained recently.

[monty16]

http://www.cbc.ca/canadaus/mchutchion.html

The link that MH asked for. But any reference to the problem will serve the purpose. This one even illustrates how the US will embark on blackmail by demanding cooperation.

[monty16]

No problem defining what I mean Guyser. The link I posted is a beginning. What particular slant would you like to pursue? Or would you just like to be non-specific and start the personal insults because you are incapable of anything else? See Celucci's comments. I mean really Guyser, there are some coherent thoughts and they stand in stark contrast to your childish kneejerk comment of me 'wanting to bash'. A forum that is interested in promoting valid discussions would stomp on you right there for several good reasons. personal attacks, spamming, disrupting a topic, lack of substance, and so it goes. I'm not asking for you to get stomped but I would like to hear something substantial from you at least!

overthere, If you don't know what I'm talking about then you need to pay more attention. For something that could resonate with you, consider how Canada used to be a 'peacekeeer' nation and of late the designation has been changed. Do you know how it's been changed? Do you understand why it seemed to be necessary that it be changed?

[guyser]

http://www.cbc.ca/canadaus/mchutchion.html

2003 . <roll eyes>

[PIK]

Hastrper and Obama

There is an imminent danger of Canada leaning too far with the US and it's politics. We are different and we need to maintain that difference by maintaining our distance. I'm fully convinced that the US is now on the slippery slope of thinking it can dominate the world with it's military might. Yet it's become obvious in the last 10 or 20 years that military might is going to take a back seat to economic might. Remember who said, 'if you're not with us then you're against us', or words to that effect.

Can we be neither, 'with the US' or 'against the US'? Can se continue to be what Canada used to represent to the world? Can we choose to proudly display the maple leaf on our backpacks without fear? Should we even want to?

The question is, will the US allow the natural progression of the changes to the world that are happening. Will it still exert it's military might when it can no longer compete with economic might. And then, how will small countries or even unknown entities fight back against US aggression?

And the big question is: Will Canada be so aligned with the US by that time that we will be seen as just a part of the US? It seems that Harper and his CPC see no danger in doing that.

Is that what Canadians want?

Opinions?

Not even close, for the 1st time we are standing on our own 2 feet, instead of waiting to be told what to do, or just check to see where the wind is blowing.

[guyser]

No problem defining what I mean Guyser. The link I posted is a beginning. What particular slant would you like to pursue? Or would you just like to be non-specific and start the personal insults because you are incapable of anything else? See Celucci's comments. I mean really Guyser, there are some coherent thoughts and they stand in stark contrast to your childish kneejerk comment of me 'wanting to bash'. A forum that is interested in promoting valid discussions would stomp on you right there for several good reasons. personal attacks, spamming, disrupting a topic, lack of substance, and so it goes. I'm not asking for you to get stomped but I would like to hear something substantial from you at least!

overthere, If you don't know what I'm talking about then you need to pay more attention. For something that could resonate with you, consider how Canada used to be a 'peacekeeer' nation and of late the designation has been changed. Do you know how it's been changed? Do you understand why it seemed to be necessary that it be changed?

Vagueness reigns again!

Good job.

Celluci...from way way back? LOL

[monty16]

Guyser, I just looked for a short URRL that I could type out quickly. As I've said, I still can't cut and paste. And again as I said, the link is not as important as the idea expressed in the OP.

But Celluci takes us back to close to when it started so it's of value here.

Canada aligned itself with US evil for their first war against Iraq. Canada would have gladly signed on to the next one had it not been for Jean Chretien listening to the Canadian people. Had it been Harper there is little doubt that we would have become a part of the coalition of the Pacific atolls.

There's something on topic for you to dispute. Now show us you can and stop the personal insults against me because you are feeling challenged by facts!

[monty16]

PIK, Harper and his party's aligning itself with US aggesssion and meddling in Syria was alarming to say the least! It was a demonstration of Harper attempting to lead this time as opposed to just following. Are you aware of that? Do you understand what I'm telling you? I'll get into the detail if I find that my audience is going to be capable of understanding and will stop the silly personal attacks and spamming of the topic.

Would you like to be one of the first to try that PIK?

[guyser]

And again as I said, the link is not as important as the idea expressed in the OP.

What idea? The vague on or the other vague one?

But Celluci takes us back to close to when it started so it's of value here.

I agree. We moved in next to the USA back in the 1990's.

How did they get along with the previous neighbours?

Canada aligned itself with US evil for their first war against Iraq.

Rightfully so. Iraqs neighbour was being overtaken. Nothing wrong with helping...then.

There's something on topic for you to dispute. Now show us you can and stop the personal insults against me because you are feeling challenged by facts!

Will you let me know when you have any?

Thanks

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.cbc.ca/canadaus/mchutchion.html

The link that MH asked for. But any reference to the problem will serve the purpose. This one even illustrates how the US will embark on blackmail by demanding cooperation.

Ok, well the link is ... a little dated ? 2003 ?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/balance-of-trade

Our balance of trade is narrowing, though, and today our exports were announced as having 'shot up'

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canadian+dollar+rises+amid+strong+jobs+data+smaller+trade/9996762/story.html

[monty16]

Guyser, I'll let you know when I'm again able to cut and paste. For now just google it because there are tons of references to Harper's mad rush to war that eclipsed the US madness.

[On Guard for Thee]

Guyser, I just looked for a short URRL that I could type out quickly. As I've said, I still can't cut and paste. And again as I said, the link is not as important as the idea expressed in the OP.

But Celluci takes us back to close to when it started so it's of value here.

Canada aligned itself with US evil for their first war against Iraq. Canada would have gladly signed on to the next one had it not been for Jean Chretien listening to the Canadian people. Had it been Harper there is little doubt that we would have become a part of the coalition of the Pacific atolls.

There's something on topic for you to dispute. Now show us you can and stop the personal insults against me because you are feeling challenged by facts!

I think you just contradicted yourself there with regard to Canada going to GW2. Aside from that glitch, I'd say it's more likely that Chretien acted based on the findings of the UN Security Council.

[monty16]

MH, I recognize your attempt to stay on topic. It's just that it offers little to talk about other than the fact that Canada is starting to see the necessity of diversifying our foreign trade in order to have some immunity from blackmail attempts by the US. I think that's something we can agree upon at least.

The link I posted was in response to what I considered your demand for one. You will recall that I asked the question on whether one was necessary and you declined to answer. You can do that now if you like?

And you could offer an explanation of why I can't cut and paste on this forum? Does it have something to do with admin or mod action against me or is it more likely to be my computer glitches? Fwiw, I can cut and paste everywhere else?

Not an accusation of course, just an observation.

[monty16]

On guard, I'm not aware of any contradiction. please explain. I do accept your explanation of Chretien decided based on the findings of the SC. However, I also know that other countries were blackmailed by the US to sign on to the second one. I'm still firmly convinced that Harper would have signed on to it.

And when I get a chance I'll try to substantiate that by finding references to Harper or the CPC criticizing Chretien's decision.

But on guard, LOL, if you are in any way as politically astute as you are pretending to be, you'll already know that Chretien was strongly criticized by the CPC and the political right.

So on guard, wanna put up right now? Was he or wasn't he? And if you don't want to put up pal, then you know the other choice? LOL

[guyser]

Guyser, I'll let you know when I'm again able to cut and paste. For now just google it because there are tons of references to Harper's mad rush to war that eclipsed the US madness.

So Google will understand what you are talking about?

What do I put in...."Whats monty16 thinking about as respects America and Canada"?

Will that work?

[On Guard for Thee]

On guard, I'm not aware of any contradiction. please explain. I do accept your explanation of Chretien decided based on the findings of the SC. However, I also know that other countries were blackmailed by the US to sign on to the second one. I'm still firmly convinced that Harper would have signed on to it.

And when I get a chance I'll try to substantiate that by finding references to Harper or the CPC criticizing Chretien's decision.

But on guard, LOL, if you are in any way as politically astute as you are pretending to be, you'll already know that Chretien was strongly criticized by the CPC and the political right.

So on guard, wanna put up right now? Was he or wasn't he? And if you don't want to put up pal, then you know the other choice? LOL

Just re read your post, the contradiction is quite glaring: you say Canada would have gladly signed on except Chretien listended to the Canadian people. Which is it?

It had nothing to do with the SC. Perhaps you meant UN?

And if you're not convinced about Harpers position at teh time, you obviously didn't do your homework. He did recant years later.

With regard to the old put or...comment, perhaps follow your own advice.

[monty16]

On Guard, you got me there. I didn't write what I was thinking. I meant to say that Harper would have signed on to that war but Chretien listened to the Canadian people. Mistake admitted. But it doesn't get you off the hook on the challenge I've offered you. Harper would have taken us to war in Iraq regardless of SC blowing the whistle on the US. And I can prove it.

So let's do it pal, you try to tell us that Harper wouldn't have taken us to war and I'll prove that he definitely wanted to and voiced that opinion strongly.

Put up or face the only other alternative. LOL

Guyser, wait your turn, this isn't a cakewalk with you when I can't cut and paste. It's only evened the playing field a bit for now.

[On Guard for Thee]

On Guard, you got me there. I didn't write what I was thinking. I meant to say that Harper would have signed on to that war but Chretien listened to the Canadian people. Mistake admitted. But it doesn't get you off the hook on the challenge I've offered you. Harper would have taken us to war in Iraq regardless of SC blowing the whistle on the US. And I can prove it.

So let's do it pal, you try to tell us that Harper wouldn't have taken us to war and I'll prove that he definitely wanted to and voiced that opinion strongly.

Put up or face the only other alternative. LOL

Guyser, wait your turn, this isn't a cakewalk with you when I can't cut and paste. It's only evened the playing field a bit for now.

Now you're repeating yourself. Anyway who is this SC you keep referring to?

I've already pointed out that Harper was in favor of going to war, but later recanted. Perhaps you should read a little more accurately before you "put up"

[guyser]

So let's do it pal, you try to tell us that Harper wouldn't have taken us to war and I'll prove that he definitely wanted to and voiced that opinion strongly.

You can suspect all you want. But you can never prove it one way or another.

Guyser, wait your turn, this isn't a cakewalk with you when I can't cut and paste. It's only evened the playing field a bit for now.

See that shaded button in the extreme top left corner? Click it then try cut and paste.

When it doesnt allow you to post, copy all. hit refresh then paste

[PIK]

Guyser, I'll let you know when I'm again able to cut and paste. For now just google it because there are tons of references to Harper's mad rush to war that eclipsed the US madness.

So chretien sends our troops to afghanistan in Iltis jeeps ,sent over in old rented Russian planes and they come home with armoured vehicles in Canadian C-17's and harper is the bad one. Get real man you have been drinking the kool aid for to long.