Canada should renounce democracy

[Queenmandy85]

In reply to Zeitgeist's eloquent post above, I don't believe Canadians would wish to have a union with the United States. We do have a markedly different culture.

As for annexation or invasion, while the US could occupy Canada very quickly, I do not believe it would be bloodless. And as time went on, more and more people would die. I wrote a paper on the OAS campaign in Algeria. It does not require many motivated guerrillas to cause a lot of terror.

This is all a hypothetical exersize. The US has no motive or desire to take over Canada. They would end up with a perpetual liberal House and Senate. That should be dis-incentive enough.

[Scott Mayers]

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The US has no motive or desire to take over Canada. They would end up with a perpetual liberal House and Senate. That should be dis-incentive enough.

This is absolutely true! In fact, what the Americans learned (without overtly announcing), is that the initial idea of "Manifest Destiny" actually penalizes the country because they would have to take on the social responsibilities of its citizens. Instead, given the power of International trade and capitalism, it is more reasonable to OWN the resources, economy and access control of these but evade the literal responsibility of those places socially or politically. In fact, it is better for them to have countries that are more easy to manipulate by having less democratically minded systems as well as owning their economy. 

[paxamericana]

16 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

This is absolutely true! In fact, what the Americans learned (without overtly announcing), is that the initial idea of "Manifest Destiny" actually penalizes the country because they would have to take on the social responsibilities of its citizens. Instead, given the power of International trade and capitalism, it is more reasonable to OWN the resources, economy and access control of these but evade the literal responsibility of those places socially or politically. In fact, it is better for them to have countries that are more easy to manipulate by having less democratically minded systems as well as owning their economy. 

you got us there! darn next time

[turningrite]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No need to think very hard about it....

Example 1:  Chretien bombed a sovereign nation during the Kosovo War (1999) without "democracy" [no vote in Parliament].

Example 2:  Chretien/Martin conspired to overthrow the elected president of Haiti (2004) using military force [no vote in Parliament].

 

Wow, you're really stretching to come up with these examples. In the first instance, Canada participated as one of 13 countries in a NATO authorized mission. I believe the U.S. was the principal belligerent on NATO's behalf in Kosovo and Canada merely joined rather than led the effort. As for the Haitian coup d'etat in 2004, the federal government's principal role was to host a conference of stakeholders (i.e. France, the U.S., Canada and some Latin American countries) just outside Ottawa more than a year prior to the actual coup. If you read the Wikipedia entry on the coup, it's pretty clear that it was an American-led effort, noting that "Many international politicians, including members of the U.S. congress and the Jamaican Prime Minister expressed concern that the United States had interfered with Haiti's democratic process by removing Aristide with excessive force."

Your examples seem to prove my point in that we became involved in these events as followers, largely as a result of our alliances.  It's laughable to allege that our leaders functioned as tyrants when an accurate assessment indicates that they were mainly subservient to more powerful states, as is generally reflective of Canada's participation in international affairs. Severing our alliances would end our obligation to participate in such adventures. I don't know whether Parliament voted to authorize participation in Kosovo, or whether it should have been required to do so as we were minor participants, but in the second case there would have been no need for Parliament to be involved as Canada's role was marginal and not overtly military in nature. There's simply no comparison in either case to the egregious adventurism often undertaken by U.S. presidents.

Edited July 6, 2018 by turningrite

[bush_cheney2004]

28 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Wow, you're really stretching to come up with these examples. In the first instance, Canada participated as one of 13 countries in a NATO authorized mission. I believe the U.S. was the principal belligerent on NATO's behalf in Kosovo and Canada merely joined rather than led the effort.

 

Not true...Chretien actually wanted to deploy troops on the ground...Clinton resisted.   NATO violated the UN charter and more to the point of this thread, DID NOT seek approval for Canadian military attacks on Serbia and aligned forces.

 

Quote

As for the Haitian coup d'etat in 2004, the federal government's principal role was to host a conference of stakeholders (i.e. France, the U.S., Canada and some Latin American countries) just outside Ottawa more than a year prior to the actual coup. If you read the Wikipedia entry on the coup, it's pretty clear that it was an American-led effort, noting that "Many international politicians, including members of the U.S. congress and the Jamaican Prime Minister expressed concern that the United States had interfered with Haiti's democratic process by removing Aristide with excessive force."

 

Again, not true, as it was a very Canadian coup (not authorized by Parliament):

https://tonyseed.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/a-very-canadian-coup-in-haiti-top-10-ways-canada-aided-the-2004-coup-and-its-reign-of-terror/

Canadian media did not report certain aspects of Canada's role in toppling Aristide and "policing" Haiti...if at all.

 

Either way, you are trying to rationalize aggressive decisions by Canada's PMs without a vote in Parliament.   So called "Responsibility to Protect" policies are not a substitute for democratic process, checks, and balances.   Note that PM Harper sought such approval before attacking Libya in 2011.

Trump and other American presidents can do the same thing.....tyrants !

 

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Queenmandy85]

In Canada, declarations of war are the jurisdiction of the Crown. Often, the Crown will seek a resolution of support from Parliament but the Crown has the ultimate authority. Of course, Parliament must be willing to vote money to pay for it.

[bush_cheney2004]

46 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In Canada, declarations of war are the jurisdiction of the Crown. Often, the Crown will seek a resolution of support from Parliament but the Crown has the ultimate authority. Of course, Parliament must be willing to vote money to pay for it.

 

That's fine....Canadian PMs have far more unchecked power than an American president.   Crown, R2P, human rights, whatever it takes to rationalize the military actions is great, but don't pretend it is "democracy".    If it makes it feel better, the bombs and bomb trucks that Canada uses to attack people across the sea are made mostly in...America.

Oh, and clearly there was no declaration of war....no way that's going to happen.

Edited July 6, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Queenmandy85]

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

don't pretend it is "democracy

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. The Crown has the authority to order troops to bomb Pitcairn Island but it won't happen unless Parliament votes money to pay for it. Parliament voted to pay for the action in the Balkans. If it hadn't, the action would not have happened.

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canadian PMs have far more unchecked power than an American president

That is true but the PM has no authority. The Queen has all the authority, (the right to give orders) but the PM has the political power (the ability to have the order carried out.) However, as a Crown appointee, he serves at the pleasure of the Crown.

This is all constitutional nit-picking, similar to some of the constitutional arguements I've seen on US political forums. The PM and the POTUS are constrained by the extent of their political support. The PM and the POTUS gauge how they can maintain or enhance their support and act accordingly. That, in effect is how democracy really works. It is true for many leaders. President Putin is very popular. When support begins to fall away, it can become a free fall ala Secretary Clinton. Sometimes, a government is faced with making an unpopular choice. They can choose to the popular thing or the right thing. Example, Prime Minister Mulroney on Free the FTA. If Mulroney had refused to sign, saying the treaty was not good enough, the free traders would have supported him for trying and the anti-free traders would have supported him for not signing. He would have gotten at least two more terms out of it but he chose to do the right thing.

[turningrite]

10 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's fine....Canadian PMs have far more unchecked power than an American president.   Crown, R2P, human rights, whatever it takes to rationalize the military actions is great, but don't pretend it is "democracy".    If it makes it feel better, the bombs and bomb trucks that Canada uses to attack people across the sea are made mostly in...America.

Oh, and clearly there was no declaration of war....no way that's going to happen.

Too funny! Canadian PMs don't have a $700 billion (US) military machine readily at their disposal. They're lucky if they can get a few fighter planes or a large cargo plane overseas over the course of several days. I believe a U.S. president can engage in military action without obtaining congressional approval, although a military action can only be sustained over the long haul by obtaining funding from congress. A Canadian PM has nothing approaching the combined level of discretionary authority and resources available to an American president. And most of us are very happy about that.

[GostHacked]

16 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No need to think very hard about it....

Example 1:  Chretien bombed a sovereign nation during the Kosovo War (1999) without "democracy" [no vote in Parliament].

Example 2:  Chretien/Martin conspired to overthrow the elected president of Haiti (2004) using military force [no vote in Parliament].

 

And for both the USA was right there as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

39 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Too funny! Canadian PMs don't have a $700 billion (US) military machine readily at their disposal.

 

They have something far more powerful with a majority government.

[Queenmandy85]

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

They have something far more powerful with a majority government.

A Majority Government is only good as long as the PM doesn't alienate too many of his own members (Example: John Deifenbaker)

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

They have something far more powerful with a majority government.

A government, majority or otherwise, without armed might basically guarantees that we're not in a position to pursue military adventurism. That, however, hasn't meant that we haven't tagged along on the coattails of American adventurism. Governments here have tended to do so mainly to keep the Americans happy. Dwight Eisenhower, himself a decorated military leader prior to entering politics, in 1961 noted the problems generated by America's "military-industrial complex," whereby the size and influence of the U.S. military and the industrial system designed to serve it generates a perpetual incentive to promote military spending and pursue armed conflict. History has demonstrated him to be correct. There is simply no equivalent in this country nor in any other Western country as far as I'm aware. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by turningrite

[paxamericana]

40 minutes ago, turningrite said:

A government, majority or otherwise, without armed might basically guarantees that we're not in a position to pursue military adventurism. That, however, hasn't meant that we haven't tagged along on the coattails of American adventurism. Governments here have tended to do so mainly to keep the Americans happy. Dwight Eisenhower, himself a decorated military leader prior to entering politics, in 1961 noted the problems generated by America's "military-industrial complex," whereby the size and influence of the U.S. military and the industrial system designed to serve it essentially guarantee that the U.S. maintains a material interest in promoting military spending and pursuing armed conflicts. History has demonstrated him to be correct. There is simply no equivalent in this country nor in any other Western country as far as I'm aware. 

You're slightly mis-informed. The reason why military and cia has been used more often to solve international disagreement is because they are two institution geared for competition. Past politician saw the opportunity to use these institution because it is easier than negotiating(a give and take bargain). All political leaders of the past are guilty of this. Not necessary just because of the military industrial complex. They are only pawns in the game of global chess. The trump administration acknowledges this and maintains that the higher military spending is not to wage war but to deter and allow our diplomat to negotiate from a position of strength. It also buys time so the diplomat can work out those conflict, diplomatically. Trump has not invaded another country since his election by the way. Obama did. Though trump did sound like he was going to, and that's the point. You got to bluff your opponent with a credible overwhelming military threat to get them to the negotiating table. It goes back to human psychology, peace through strength not peace through getting rid of your Military Industrial Complex by under funding them and hoping your adversary won't take advantage of that. Peace is expensive but war is much more expensive. So get on the Trump train canadians. Big brother is taking you on for a ride. At the very least if you're not willing to support your own MIC why don't you do free trade with us so we can afford to do defend you. It's more than fair, it's good for you as well. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by paxrom

[turningrite]

15 minutes ago, paxrom said:

You're slightly mis-informed. The reason why military and cia has been used more often to solve international disagreement is because they are two institution geared for competition. Past politician saw the opportunity to use these institution because it is easier than negotiating(a give and take bargain). All political leaders of the past are guilty of this. Not necessary just because of the military industrial complex. They are only pawns in the game of global chess. The trump administration acknowledges this and maintains that the higher military spending is not to wage war but to deter and allow our diplomat to negotiate from a position of strength. It also buys time so the diplomat can work out those conflict, diplomatically. Trump has not invaded another country since his election by the way. Obama did. Though trump did sound like he was going to, and that's the point. You got to bluff your opponent with a credible overwhelming military threat to get them to the negotiating table. 

And yet, reportedly, Trump was champing at the bit for military action against the Venezuelan regime. The American military budget is reputedly greater than that of the ten next largest military budgets in the world combined. Eisenhower's apparent fear was that a 'use it or lose it' mentality would become prevalent where American military spending was concerned. It is a huge component of the American economy and, unfortunately, psyche. In the eyes of much of the rest of the world, America's military might is not merely a negotiating tool that buys time, as you appear to believe, but is essentially a club used to threaten and bludgeon real and potential enemies and competitors. America's most ignominious recent war, Bush II's illegal Iraq "regime change" adventure, transformed that part of the world and areas far beyond it into more dangerous places by virtue of the ISIS/ISIL threat and the migrant crisis. And all that at a cost of roughly a trillion dollars to the U.S. treasury. And, by the way, what country did Obama invade?

[paxamericana]

10 minutes ago, turningrite said:

And yet, reportedly, Trump was champing at the bit for military action against the Venezuelan regime. The American military budget is reputedly greater than that of the ten next largest military budgets in the world combined. Eisenhower's apparent fear was that a 'use it or lose it' mentality would become prevalent where American military spending was concerned. It is a huge component of the American economy and, unfortunately, psyche. In the eyes of much of the rest of the world, America's military might is not merely a negotiating tool that buys time, as you appear to believe, but is essentially a club used to threaten and bludgeon real and potential enemies and competitors. America's most ignominious recent war, Bush II's illegal Iraq "regime change" adventure, transformed that part of the world and areas far beyond it into more dangerous places by virtue of the ISIS/ISIL threat and the migrant crisis. And all that at a cost of roughly a trillion dollars to the U.S. treasury. And, by the way, what country did Obama invade?

Lybia ring a bell? Regime change has been done by both parties. Nobody hands are clean. But sometimes regime change is what's needed. Cough hitler

Also we are proud of our military and their industrial complex no need to call it "unfortunate". 

Edited July 6, 2018 by paxrom

[turningrite]

4 minutes ago, paxrom said:

Lybia ring a bell? Regime change has been done by both parties. Nobody hands are clean. But sometimes regime change is what's needed. Cough hitler

Also we are proud of our military and their industrial complex no need to call it "unfortunate". 

Libya is another case that's turned into a complete disaster. The Western allies, with Canada tagging along with our NATO allies as usual, pursued regime change for the sake of regime change. It did nothing to boost international security and in fact has had the opposite impact. The comparison with Hitler is artificial. He led a powerful Western state and his regime, which came to power as a result the ridiculously retributional treaty that ended WWI as well as in the wake of the collapse of democratic capitalism, was a threat to Westernism itself. When forcing regime change in non-Western societies we're taking a chance that the cure might and probably will be much worse than the disease. Unfortunately, strong-man regimes develop for reasons that are integral to the circumstances of the countries in which they emerge. Often, the best we can hope for is a softening of the edges in some of these places, as we're seeing to some extent these days in Saudi Arabia. But progress in these cases is often very slow and uneven. The notion that democracy can be exported, as opposed to developing organically, has largely been discredited. As for the military-industrial complex, I suggest you consider Eisenhower's logic, which I believe was well-informed. Nightmares like Bush II's Iraq war are a consequence of ignoring Eisenhower's warning.

[paxamericana]

22 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Libya is another case that's turned into a complete disaster. The Western allies, with Canada tagging along with our NATO allies as usual, pursued regime change for the sake of regime change. It did nothing to boost international security and in fact has had the opposite impact. The comparison with Hitler is artificial. He led a powerful Western state and his regime, which came to power as a result the ridiculously retributional treaty that ended WWI as well as in the wake of the collapse of democratic capitalism, was a threat to Westernism itself. When forcing regime change in non-Western societies we're taking a chance that the cure might and probably will be much worse than the disease. Unfortunately, strong-man regimes develop for reasons that are integral to the circumstances of the countries in which they emerge. Often, the best we can hope for is a softening of the edges in some of these places, as we're seeing to some extent these days in Saudi Arabia. But progress in these cases is often very slow and uneven. The notion that democracy can be exported, as opposed to developing organically, has largely been discredited. As for the military-industrial complex, I suggest you consider Eisenhower's logic, which I believe was well-informed. Nightmares like Bush II's Iraq war are a consequence of ignoring Eisenhower's warning.

Some interesting ideas about exported democracy. Lets discuss it in another post. As for the MIC, again I will point out that its not having a strong mic that's at fault its having leaders too willing to use them. By the way you should consider the CIA part of the MIC . Which Obama loved using.  I think all president do because of its unaccountability. 

[Altai]

On 7/5/2018 at 7:26 PM, GostHacked said:

Dictators rule for decades, (s)elected leaders have term limits.  Erdogan is more of a dictator at this point considering all he has done to kill opposition in Turkey.  Canada did not invade these lands. The Brits did, as did France, Spain, and many other European nations.

Lmao, why you start to blame others when someones tell you what you are ? 

Yes you invade America, why do you reject a fact ? Technically it becomes a dictatorship when you invade somewheres. You invade their lands and forcing them to obey you.

[Army Guy]

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 12:55 AM, turningrite said:

Do you have a more constructive and/or intelligent idea to offer?

I don't want to sound rude, but I put as much thought into my reply as you did in fact checking your facts....

 

[GostHacked]

11 hours ago, Altai said:

Lmao, why you start to blame others when someones tell you what you are ? 

Yes you invade America, why do you reject a fact ? Technically it becomes a dictatorship when you invade somewheres. You invade their lands and forcing them to obey you.

I , nor my generation invaded America.

However previous generations CREATED new nations.  And technically it was the European nations that invaded and set up shop.  But this shows you have no idea what democracy is, or how nations were started. Go troll somewhere else.

How long as Ergodan been in power? And how did he do it? HE is more of a dictator, as he may be in power long after Trudeau is gone. 

[Army Guy]

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 11:20 AM, turningrite said:

Too funny! Canadian PMs don't have a $700 billion (US) military machine readily at their disposal. They're lucky if they can get a few fighter planes or a large cargo plane overseas over the course of several days. I believe a U.S. president can engage in military action without obtaining congressional approval, although a military action can only be sustained over the long haul by obtaining funding from congress. A Canadian PM has nothing approaching the combined level of discretionary authority and resources available to an American president. And most of us are very happy about that.

No one on the planet can or does have the military resources that the US of A has, but every nation does have military resources that can be used in any way that the governing power decides....see OKA crises here in Canada, or Haiti, Kosovo , Libya air Campaign,  international missions that Canada's military forces where ordered to seek out and destroy our enemies , enemies decided by our politicians .....whether we were the lead nation or not those resources were authorized by the PM. Regardless of what defensive pact we are signed on to, only the PM has the authority send troops and equipment on this missions, he can say no at any time. 

And your right , most Canadians  are happy we don't spend a lot on our military......... for some reason Canadians do not understand the first thing about their military or it's roles it plays everyday on their behalf, Shit most Canadians do give a shit about anything outside of their household or community......This grossly uneducated view has scared them into thinking our military is full of BAD PEOPLE that want to hurt everyone....the same military that could barely handle the Winnipeg floods, or Ice storms, because it is so under manned and poorly equipped.....

We should starve it of funds, place them in glass cases with signs that say break only in emergency.....we take great pride making jokes or poking fun at them, we take great pride in watching them struggle to do the tasks we as a Nation "demand" they do, we love to see them fail, we use them as some sort of medical or social experiment to solve other issues like sexual assault in the work place , or women's rights to name a few... we hold them to high standards and wait for them to fall, so we can say "SEE" this is why we don't like you.........This is what most Canadians are willing to give up for  their sons and daughters when they join our military......lives are cheap, there is always some kid willing to die for a few dollars , just like there is always some politician ready to take advantage of our cheapness and their career aspirations that can't wait to send our sons and daughters to some world shit hole to make a few political points....

And then when all is said and done, and someone points to all our faults and irony of it all, we as in the people of Canada go on the attack....failing to see the larger problem....being the people..Our politicians are always going to place our military into harms way...…...We are not going to change that "ever"..... Our sons and daughters are always going to sign up on the dotted line to serve this great nation, we are never going to change that either.....So why can we not sit down and tie them together, force our government to properly train, equip, and fund our military, and hold our government responsible every time we deploy them.

It is all a pipe dream...… because that Sir takes to much effort, we would rather slag Americans for pointing out our faults, and continue burying our sons and daughters because we are cheap sons of bitches…. 

[Altai]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

I , nor my generation invaded America.

However previous generations CREATED new nations.  And technically it was the European nations that invaded and set up shop.  But this shows you have no idea what democracy is, or how nations were started. Go troll somewhere else.

How long as Ergodan been in power? And how did he do it? HE is more of a dictator, as he may be in power long after Trudeau is gone. 

Ofcourse you did. If your grandfather would steal a car, could you tell you will keep using this car because of it was not stolen by you but was stolen by your grandfather ?

Create another topic to discuss about another country. 

[Queenmandy85]

13 hours ago, Altai said:

Lmao, why you start to blame others when someones tell you what you are ? 

Yes you invade America, why do you reject a fact ? Technically it becomes a dictatorship when you invade somewheres. You invade their lands and forcing them to obey you.

You mean like the Ottoman Empire? 

[Altai]

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You mean like the Ottoman Empire? 

Stop trolling guys, try to be honest at least once in your life. Being dishonest is really a disgusting feature. You simply disgust me. You cant even reply my questions because you cant tolerate to read truth. Is this your democracy ? You prove my point with each new post.