The Conservative Love-In

[caesar]

that we may disagree with not getting are panties in a knot because one gorup wants to smoke pot and the other group wants to smoke Iraqi's

Good one hehehehe LMAO

[Argus]

Some people seem to feel that if don't constantly spit on the Americans we must be their bitch somehow. An odd bit of illogic.

Listen if you want to debate, debate but don;t give me that crap. I never said we ahve to piss off Americans or we become their slaves, I simply claimed WE DO NOT NEED TO DO EVERYTHING AMERICA DOES TO BE THEIR FRIENDS, NOR SHOULD WE BE REQUIRED TO.

Uh huh, and who ever suggested that? No one. Face it. Many of you on the left feel about Americans about the same as Ernst Zundel feels about Jews. Your complaints are spurious and childish.

Well, let's see, the Americans have largely defended us and our interests for half a century. They carry us in defence terms for NORAD and NATO. They invited us into the big guys clubs like the G7 (where we really don't belong), and we have an umpteen katrillion dollar trading surplus with them every year they never complain about.

What was it we did for them again?

This may come as a shock to you but we are ten times smaller then them, so of course they will carry us on many issues...and in many international realted affairs....it is un fair to expect Canada to pull 50% of the responsibility for guarding North America.

How about 10%? I guess that's too much to expect, too. I pointed out the Americans had carried us for years and that we have done precisely nothing in exchange. This in response to your "friendship is a two way exchange ya know!" complaint. I'm still waiting to hear all the great things we have done for them.

As for America never complaining about trade...uhmm.... your comments about the conservatives were in reference to what? Yes that is right the softwood lumber dispute.

Trade disputes are bound to crop up, but you haven't seen hearings in congress on Canada's huge trade surplus the way you have with regard to China, Japan and South Korea. And minor trade irritants can be much more easily solved if we don't go out of our way to irritate and insult the Americans.

The missile defence thing is a great example. It was in no way against our interests to support them on that. It would have costed nothing. Martin decided his minor, short-term domestic political gain in giving in to anti-americans and anti-military types was more important and turned his back on the promises he had already made the Americans, enormously pissing them off. Then, sheerly by coincidence, I'm sure, a Republican federal judge blocked the resumption of beef imports. Hmmm.

Iraq was another example, though not quite as good an example. What they really wanted was support from us, not troops. They knew we had nothing to fight with anyway. Encouraging words would have done the trick. Instead we opposed the invasion. Why? Not for moral reasons, that's for sure. I mean, you can accept it when a 'friend" opposes you out of conscience. That wasn't the case. The Liberal government looked at the polls, looked at the shrill, anti-American wing within their party, and decided it would profit them more to oppose the Iraq war than to support it. It was that simple. And who cared if that pissed off the Americans?

As for the G7, many left wingers on this sight-- as well as myself-- have promoted diversifying Canada's trade so we do belong in such organizations. However many conservatives want us to put all are eggs in one basket

Diversify all you want. If you work reaalllly hard at it you might shift 1-2% of our trade to somewhere else. The problem with the Left on this issue is the same as the problem with the Left on most issues. You want to do something but you haven't got the faintest idea how to go about it.

It does make you feel better to say you support the thing, though. And I guess that's all that's important.

Us nasty old conservatives don't oppose diversifying trade. We merely recognize that there are very limited viable alternatives. Recognizing reality has never been the Left's forte' though.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy (and Argus),

Considering that the Bali bombing was a year *before* the invasion of Iraq, I think you're going to have a hard time arguing that the Bali bombing was a reprisal for joining the invasion. Al Qaeda might be pretty clever, but I'm not sure they're capable of time-travel or seeing the future.

Whoopsie, I should have been more clear...being in bed with the US was a large factor in the Bali bombing, and Australians were targeted.

A quote from Gwynne Dyer's book "Future:Tense The Coming World Order" (2004)pg 189

But in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there were no Arab allies, and effectively no NATO allies, except Britain-even the Turks had refused to let the United States use it's bases in the country for the attack. In fact the Americans and British were all alone on the front line except for a couple of thousand Australians. (Australian defence policy consists primarily of sending troops along to every American war, in the hope that if one day Australia needs to have the favour returned, Americans will feel grateful enough to come and help. If the United States invaded Mars, Australia would send a battalion along)

This has obviously been Australia's stance for some time.

Further, in the book "Imperial Hubris; Why The West Is Losing The War On Terror" (2004) by Anonymous (since revealed as Michael Scheuer, CIA officer)pg94

12 October 2002: Indonesia's al-Qaeda-tied Jemaah Islamiya (JI) detonates a suicide car bomb at a Bali nightclub, killing more than two hundred, about half Australians. A JI fighter named Amorzi, who ran the attack, later said "There is some pride in my heart. For the white people it serves them right. They know how to destroy religion in the most subtle ways through bars and gambling dens."

So, the Aussies were targeted for being a part of the Islamist's percieved 'Western attack against Islam', and for Australia's unwavering support of the US. This has more to do with 'the war on terror' than did the actual invasion of Iraq, which is unrelated to 'the war on terror'.

[kimmy]

So, the Aussies were targeted for being a part of the Islamist's percieved 'Western attack against Islam', and for Australia's unwavering support of the US. This has more to do with 'the war on terror' than did the actual invasion of Iraq, which is unrelated to 'the war on terror'.

I'd first off point out that Canada has participated in the 'war on terror', despite staying out of the Iraq invasion.

And secondly I would mention that according to Al Qaeda themselves, Australia's UN-endorsed intervention in East Timor was an attack on Islam; Australia has officially been on Al Qaeda's hit-list since before the Iraq invasion, before the Afghanistan invasion, and before Sept 11, 2001. Al Qaeda has been threatening harm to the Australians since 1999, and most interestingly Australia's "trespass against Islam" had nothing to do with tagging along with the Americans at all.

-kimmy

[Slavik44]

Uh huh, and who ever suggested that? No one. Face it. Many of you on the left feel about Americans about the same as Ernst Zundel feels about Jews. Your complaints are spurious and childish.

No your purposefull misinterpretation of what I said is childish, I have no ill fealings to Americans in general, I however do nto belive that being friends with America should require Canada to support things like the invasion of Iraq, or BMD...I also belive that for America to be friends with us they do not have to belive in decriminlization of Pot or homosexual marriges...I think as friends both sides should be free to do their own thing.

How about 10%? I guess that's too much to expect, too. I pointed out the Americans had carried us for years and that we have done precisely nothing in exchange. This in response to your "friendship is a two way exchange ya know!" complaint. I'm still waiting to hear all the great things we have done for them.

not at all, 10% is not to much to ask...but that depends on what we define as 10%...and is going to Iraq part of that 10%? Is participating in BMD part of that 10%? If it is then no Canada should not put in 10%....however if 10% is increased funding and modernization of the millitary then sure...I have nothing wrong with 10%...however I don't want Stephen harper comming in and giving 15%.

Trade disputes are bound to crop up et all...

Who is to say these trade disputes don't crop up due impart to these disparities in trade? Further more Canada's primary exports are raw resources...not Finished Items...after all we are just a rich 3rd world country. America is not going to complain about getting raw resources from Canada, they need such resources, and due to our close proximity they come at a cheap price. If we were exporting computers and cars instead of oil and minerals...they would be having such problems, as you mentioned.

missile defence...

I disgree with that, I don;t think missile defence has bene proven capable of doing the job...and this is a huge investment on Canada's part and I am not interested in frivolous spending by the government, we have enough of that already.

Iraq was another example, though not quite as good an example. What they really wanted was support from us, not troops

Iraq was not an example, and I refuse to support something that I view as morally wrong. If a friend was to go get drunk and decide he wanted to drive his car

1) I would not go with him

2) I would not support him

a real friend would take the guys damn keys.

Diversify...............

If all you want to do is throw around vieled insults, that is fine but please have something to back your arguement up instead of using arbitrary numbers you pull out of your head. Besides that a little diversification wouldn't hurt evne if it is only 2%, but I find many rightwingers advocate throwing are eggs in one basket.

As for knowing about diversification, FFS, this is an internet chat board, not a meeting of great economic thinkers, and in relation you know nothign either so shut your pie hole. As for the left not beeing intuned with reality, who says you are in tune with reality and who defines what reality is? And who defines who or what is living in reality? Sure if you define reality you can also define who is living in it... that is nice but hardly usefull or even in posession of a point or purpose.

[Argus]

Whoopsie, I should have been more clear...being in bed with the US was a large factor in the Bali bombing, and Australians were targeted.

A quote from Gwynne Dyer's book "Future:Tense The Coming World Order" (2004)pg 189

But in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there were no Arab allies, and effectively no NATO allies, except Britain-even the Turks had refused to let the United States use it's bases in the country for the attack. In fact the Americans and British were all alone on the front line except for a couple of thousand Australians. (Australian defence policy consists primarily of sending troops along to every American war, in the hope that if one day Australia needs to have the favour returned, Americans will feel grateful enough to come and help. If the United States invaded Mars, Australia would send a battalion along)

This has obviously been Australia's stance for some time.

Now I have some measure of respect for Gwynne Dyer, though he is a raving peacenik, but I'm afraid I find it difficult to accept a CANADIAN having the gall to criticise Australia's defence policy. Australia at least HAS a defence policy, regardless of what you perceive it to be. It also has a rapidly expanding and modernizing military which it has used with some authority and affect in East Timor and Samoa, where it acted on its own, not waiting to be begged by the UN to intervene in disastrous situations. We have a rusting out military with =NO= plans for modernizing it, and no defence policy - literally. They've been promising one for ages but it's still being "studied". The Austrlians sit far closer to a large number of potential enemies of substantial size, including the Indonesians and Chinese. Small wonder they see the need for a well-armed friend.

Further, in the book "Imperial Hubris; Why The West Is Losing The War On Terror" (2004) by Anonymous (since revealed as Michael Scheuer, CIA officer)pg94

12 October 2002: Indonesia's al-Qaeda-tied Jemaah Islamiya (JI) detonates a suicide car bomb at a Bali nightclub, killing more than two hundred, about half Australians. A JI fighter named Amorzi, who ran the attack, later said "There is some pride in my heart. For the white people it serves them right. They know how to destroy religion in the most subtle ways through bars and gambling dens."

So, the Aussies were targeted for being a part of the Islamist's percieved 'Western attack against Islam',

In other words, because they were White and not Muslims. Gee, doesn't that pretty much describe most of us, too? In other words, the same wacko Islamofascists who murdered hundreds of people in Bali would feel just as much "pride in their hearts" if they killed a couple of hundred Canadians.

and for Australia's unwavering support of the US. This has more to do with 'the war on terror' than did the actual invasion of Iraq, which is unrelated to 'the war on terror'.

So your solution is what? Run away and hide? Let people like this do as they please? Shrug it off on the Americans and then sit back and sneer at how miltaristic they are for doing the dirty work we shrink from?

Do you think it's more moral to do nothing in the face of this kind of murderous violence and hate than to confront it?

[Montgomery Burns]

Shame on the liberals who physically blocked access to Conservative Party members to their own policy convention in their own country. :angry:

[kimmy]

Indeed. While the incident received little or no mention in most media outlets (which is just as well, I think-- a small group of homosexual advocates and their "Sodomobile" has little news value) I did track down some coverage of the "Pink Panthers" and their demonstration to a few gay-oriented sources who unanimously described it as a terrific non-violent awareness-raising event.

This Canadian Press photo certainly appears to tell a different story, as this delegate appears to have been swarmed, harrassed, and physically obstructed by these protestors.

http://www.cp.org/asp/PHG_gallery.asp?the_..._date=3/18/2005

But it is just as well that the media treated the protest for what it was: of little significance, and of little relevance to the convention. The Pink Panthers will surely have to try harder next year if they want to grab headlines. Perhaps they could get Rick Mercer to drive the Sodomobile.

-kimmy