Did PM Steven Harper Invite Or Deter Terrorism to/from Canada?

[ToadBrother]

We have been used by the American thugs for far too long. We need to put some distance between us. Their illegal wars cause far too problems for Canada and I am sure they create the most refugees in the world with all their meddling, sanctions, and covert efforts to destabilize countries. Canada has a higher moral standard and we need to point that out to the world more often.

The United States pretty much constitutes our single most important international partner.

What you're talking about would devastate this country's economy, not to mention it's absurdly hyperbolic.

Edited September 29, 2015 by ToadBrother

[PIK]

Well thanks to Obama , America is no longer the leader, it is now russia. So lets see how things work now with putin in charge of world events. This may be one of those be careful what you wish for times.

[dialamah]

Before you answer, think which country is most likely to come to our defence if any kind of military crisis arises between us and Russia...

Since this country has a tendency to jump to 'defend' even where they're not wanted, I somehow doubt they'd get in a snit, and just stand by and let Canada be over-run by the bad guys of the decade. Of course, they'll destroy our country in their zeal to protect us, but protected we'll be, goddamit!

[ToadBrother]

Since this country has a tendency to jump to 'defend' even where they're not wanted, I somehow doubt they'd get in a snit, and just stand by and let Canada be over-run by the bad guys of the decade. Of course, they'll destroy our country in their zeal to protect us, but protected we'll be, goddamit!

Oh come on. The US is hardly going to destroy Canada. The mere fact that we aren't a part of the US goes to show you how restrained the US is. Heck, even those parts of foreign states that the US seized, in other words, the former northern parts of Mexico, fared a heck of lot better than those parts of Mexico that remained under Mexican control.

[Argus]

Well thanks to Obama , America is no longer the leader, it is now russia. So lets see how things work now with putin in charge of world events. This may be one of those be careful what you wish for times.

Russia remains a stunted dwarf with a club arm. It is not a leader of anything except insofar as it's willing to use force without much care about the consequences or deaths.

[ToadBrother]

Well thanks to Obama , America is no longer the leader, it is now russia. So lets see how things work now with putin in charge of world events. This may be one of those be careful what you wish for times.

The US so outguns the rest of the world that the rest of the world's military might united would not be sufficient to take the US on. In reality, and this may be hard for Russians to accept, over the last ten to fifteen years, the US has deemed China to be of far greater strategic importance and a far greater threat to US interests than Russia.

Russia is a nearly bankrupt country literally running on fumes. Low oil prices have demonstrated what everyone should have known about it; a corrupt petrostrate of shrinking ability to project force. Sure, it can march forces into Ukraine or into South Ossetia, but is there anyone who seriously views Russia as a significant international threat? They have their nukes, and that gives them default importance, but Russia is a shadow of the USSR, and the US has little to fear from it.

[dialamah]

Oh come on. The US is hardly going to destroy Canada. The mere fact that we aren't a part of the US goes to show you how restrained the US is. Heck, even those parts of foreign states that the US seized, in other words, the former northern parts of Mexico, fared a heck of lot better than those parts of Mexico that remained under Mexican control.

They wouldn't *intend* to destroy Canada, it would just be collateral damage from protecting us from the invading Russian Hordes you posited. Kinda like those other countries the US has defended ...

[ToadBrother]

They wouldn't *intend* to destroy Canada, it would just be collateral damage from protecting us from the invading Russian Hordes you posited. Kinda like those other countries the US has defended ...

I'm sorry, that you cannot even really say how we would be destroyed tells me this is nothing more than vacuous hyperbole.

[Ask Your Mother]

This could be argued either way and since there is an election the candidates will avoid this question like the plague I think. This is an issue that can really divide voters. Personally I still favor abstinence for OPW (Other People's Wars) unless Canada is attacked first. This "preemptive" crap is mostly propoganda imo.

[Gleason]

Hmmm... Over time he has become more and more like BUsh - bellicose and and almost racist, This thing with the woman's headress is a perfect example. People are getting a phobia about Muslims and thanks to media's distorted coverage of world events western people and ;leaders ar egetting quicker amnd quicker to label other people. I personally think sending our armed forcese into Afghanistan is not just a mistake, but not really needed in the first place. There are other ways we can support America (like votes at the UN) but that support should not be automatic but based on the merits of the issue.

[Argus]

Hmmm... Over time he has become more and more like BUsh - bellicose and and almost racist, This thing with the woman's headress is a perfect example.

Are you calling the Quebec Liberal government racists?

[angrypenguin]

Are you calling the Quebec Liberal government racists?

That's a pretty weak word to call the Quebec government in general

[dialamah]

I'm sorry, that you cannot even really say how we would be destroyed tells me this is nothing more than vacuous hyperbole.

It was kind of a joke, eh. Sometimes I'm just too subtle for my own good.

Vacuous hyperbole could be another way to describe it.

[Biz Liz]

I think when Harper keeps using the word "foreigners" when referring to Canadian residents he is subliminally saying they are "second class" people and being a bit racist IMO.

[ToadBrother]

I think when Harper keeps using the word "foreigners" when referring to Canadian residents he is subliminally saying they are "second class" people and being a bit racist IMO.

Providing he applies it to Conrad Black, I'm totally hip to it!

[Liberalhippy]

You don't have to look further than Harper's recent deal with Saudi Arabia to see that Harper isn't defending us from terrorism. He's actually helping it along.

http://www.newsweek.com/saudi-arabia-one-worlds-most-prolific-executioners-365461

[ToadBrother]

You don't have to look further than Harper's recent deal with Saudi Arabia to see that Harper isn't defending us from terrorism. He's actually helping it along.

http://www.newsweek.com/saudi-arabia-one-worlds-most-prolific-executioners-365461

I have problems with the amount of business the Industrialized World does with the Saudis, but we don't have much choice, because if you look at what could replace the House of Saud, I think you have to admit we're backing the best possible regime in the Arabian Peninsula.

[Liberalhippy]

I have problems with the amount of business the Industrialized World does with the Saudis, but we don't have much choice, because if you look at what could replace the House of Saud, I think you have to admit we're backing the best possible regime in the Arabian Peninsula.

Why do we have to back any regime? The states backed al qaeda and look how that turned out.

[ToadBrother]

Why do we have to back any regime? The states backed al qaeda and look how that turned out.

We have to back some regimes simply because their collapse could have monumental geopolitical ramifications. Saudi Arabia is precisely the kind of regime that, no matter how nasty it is, and how questionable its loyalties may be at times, is of such great importance that we cannot let it slide into some other, and probably much more hostile group's hands.

The Chinese doubtless feel the same about North Korea; a regime that as assuredly as Saudi Arabia is to the West is noxious, but whose survival is key to China's national interest.

As Winston Churchill famously said after the Germans invaded Russia "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

[Liberalhippy]

We have to back some regimes simply because their collapse could have monumental geopolitical ramifications. Saudi Arabia is precisely the kind of regime that, no matter how nasty it is, and how questionable its loyalties may be at times, is of such great importance that we cannot let it slide into some other, and probably much more hostile group's hands.

The Chinese doubtless feel the same about North Korea; a regime that as assuredly as Saudi Arabia is to the West is noxious, but whose survival is key to China's national interest.

As Winston Churchill famously said after the Germans invaded Russia "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

If we had that type of thinking before we set foot in Iraq, I wonder where we would be today?

[ToadBrother]

If we had that type of thinking before we set foot in Iraq, I wonder where we would be today?

I'd say Iraq is the perfect example of how ignoring the "Devil You Know" principle can badly backfire.

[PIK]

Wow, a lot of new liberal and NDP agents on the board, spewing their hate and lies. Sorry but it is the left that shows more hate toward people then any conservative. Time to tone it down.

[bush_cheney2004]

We have to back some regimes simply because their collapse could have monumental geopolitical ramifications.

...and some Canadian regimes back other regimes for pure economic interest (mining, oil services, construction, exports, etc.). For instance, SNC-Lavalin was awarded a $500 million USD contract for a large scale sulphuric acid plant last year....in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.snclavalin.com/en/snclavalin-wins-contract-for-largescale-sulphuric-acid-project-in-saudi-arabia

Canada was more than happy to play ball with Myanmar's "human rights abuses" because of lucrative mining interests (Ivanhoe).

Edited October 7, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[PIK]

...and some Canadian regimes back other regimes for pure economic interest (mining, oil services, construction, exports, etc.). For instance, SNC-Lavalin was awarded a $500 million USD for a large scale sulphuric acid plant last year....in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.snclavalin.com/en/snclavalin-wins-contract-for-largescale-sulphuric-acid-project-in-saudi-arabia

Canada was more than happy to play ball with Myanmar's "human rights abuses" because of lucrative mining interests (Ivanhoe).

SNC- Lavalin is one slimy company.

[ToadBrother]

...and some Canadian regimes back other regimes for pure economic interest (mining, oil services, construction, exports, etc.). For instance, SNC-Lavalin was awarded a $500 million USD contract for a large scale sulphuric acid plant last year....in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.snclavalin.com/en/snclavalin-wins-contract-for-largescale-sulphuric-acid-project-in-saudi-arabia

Canada was more than happy to play ball with Myanmar's "human rights abuses" because of lucrative mining interests (Ivanhoe).

Absolutely. There isn't a first or second tier power in the world that isn't working in some way with some pretty shady regimes.

But there are profoundly good reasons to keep the House of Saud going beyond even any short term commercial gain. Those desert sands are among the most important pieces of geography on the planet, and they border one of the most important waterways in the world. To contemplate Saudi Arabia overrun by a pack of apocalyptic lunatics bent on creating the next Caliphate and gaining control of the region should terrify anyone.