Canada’s Conservatives

[jdobbin]

Well ... duh.

Anyone with the notion that we could be viewed as more of an ally to the US (regardless of who is in power) than the UK is dreaming.

I'm just glad to be a scintilla more than a fairweather friend which is what we were under Liberal rule.

And I have pointed out several times that the first nation to come running to America's aid last year was Canada. The RCMP were on the ground 24 hours after the flooding and three or four days before the Coast Guard showed up. The Coast Guard wondered why a Canadian flag was flying over the town.

Ditto, September 11. All U.S. air travel shuts down. Thousands of people take refuge in Canada, the largest number of people from the U.S. sheltered in the days that followed.

Canada was one of the first nations to support action on Afghanistan.

It should be of interest to note that only 44% of Americans regarded Australia as a loyal friend last year even when they've been in support of Iraq and sent troops.

This fairweather assessment doesn't hold water. When the rain is pouring down on the United States, we've been there as a loyal friend. It doesn't mean we have to follow them blindly though.

[jbg]

Anyone with the notion that we could be viewed as more of an ally to the US (regardless of who is in power) than the UK is dreaming.

I'm just glad to be a scintilla more than a fairweather friend which is what we were under Liberal rule.

I think your point is somewhat well taken. Britain's position is more akin to a "mother country" to both the US and Canada. The US got involved in both World Wars largely at Britain's request, sort of the way a grown son or daughter, feeling guilty, comes home to help aging parents. Canada is more of a sibling to the US, in terms of relationship, than a parent, i.e. closer in relation in some respects, but always a rival.

[jdobbin]

I think your point is somewhat well taken. Britain's position is more akin to a "mother country" to both the US and Canada. The US got involved in both World Wars largely at Britain's request, sort of the way a grown son or daughter, feeling guilty, comes home to help aging parents. Canada is more of a sibling to the US, in terms of relationship, than a parent, i.e. closer in relation in some respects, but always a rival.

The U.S. didn't enter World War II at Britian's request. It was invited to the conflict by Japan.

[jbg]

I think your point is somewhat well taken. Britain's position is more akin to a "mother country" to both the US and Canada. The US got involved in both World Wars largely at Britain's request, sort of the way a grown son or daughter, feeling guilty, comes home to help aging parents. Canada is more of a sibling to the US, in terms of relationship, than a parent, i.e. closer in relation in some respects, but always a rival.

The U.S. didn't enter World War II at Britian's request. It was invited to the conflict by Japan.

Only in the very narrowest of senses are you right. The US was hardly a neutral when attacked by Japan, at least in the Atlantic Theatre. Whether we deserved to be attacked by Japan is a close call; certainly, if Japan and Germany were coordinating, the US was already a belligerant in all but name.

[jdobbin]

Only in the very narrowest of senses are you right. The US was hardly a neutral when attacked by Japan, at least in the Atlantic Theatre. Whether we deserved to be attacked by Japan is a close call; certainly, if Japan and Germany were coordinating, the US was already a belligerant in all but name.

The U.S. sat on its ass until October 30, 1941. The entire burden of actually fighting the war fell on other allies until the U.S. was bombed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_lease

[jbg]

Only in the very narrowest of senses are you right. The US was hardly a neutral when attacked by Japan, at least in the Atlantic Theatre. Whether we deserved to be attacked by Japan is a close call; certainly, if Japan and Germany were coordinating, the US was already a belligerant in all but name.

The U.S. sat on its ass until October 30, 1941. The entire burden of actually fighting the war fell on other allies until the U.S. was bombed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_lease

There were activities prior to Lend-Lease. Lend-Lease made public what wasbeing done in secret before.

[jdobbin]

There were activities prior to Lend-Lease. Lend-Lease made public what wasbeing done in secret before.

I don't think there is much patting on the back to be done for taking a powder while other nations did the fighting.

As far a secret lend lease, it must have been so tiny that Congress was barely aware of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_hist...ng_World_War_II

[betsy]

So I ask, what has Harper done to the end of Canada returning to its role as a "key member of the English-speaking world, which over the years has rescued the world from Nazism, Communism and other loopy forms of dictatorship" other than agree with the US? Harper wasn't even the one who sent the troops to Afghanistan, the Liberals did that. Sure, he left them there after their role exceeded their usual one of social workers to the downtrodden, but beyond that name one thing ... please.

Just by simply having the guts to stand on his principles....and yes, that means having to agree with the US or Bush...whom everyone knows is very much disliked by a lot of Canadians.

Chretien and Martin were not only fence-sitters....they've also fed on the public's uproar over Bush on Iraq, that they even tolerated vulgar antics by their MPs, quite unbecoming of any political leaders.

Previous politcal leaders....starting with the Clintons...then mimicked by the Liberal leaders...have come up with creative ways to use "double-talk"...or empty new-word jargon!

The latest I find quite amusing and coincidentally very much appropriate is Graham's fondness for this word: "Nuances"

See how this word had been picked up and is now popularly used.

Well, according to webster, NUANCE: a slight or delicate variation in tone, color, meaning etc.

Boy, that's the Liberals!

The global promises to Kyoto and the generic drugs for AIDS....what happened?

How can the global community take them seriously when their words mean nothing?

A lot of "nudge-nudge-wink-wink" most probably going on behind their backs when they make their gut-wrenching political speeches and promises!

So Harper comes as a breath of...much-needed....fresh air!

[jdobbin]

So Harper comes as a breath of...much-needed....fresh air!

He doesn't come as a fresh air to Quebec.

Still not enough support to win a majority.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/01092006/2/nati...ction-poll.html

[betsy]

I just wish we had a leader and a citizenry that had the courage to be a world leader too. Instead we have to aspire just to be a follower. I guess that in the sense of our presence and importance on the world stage I am a bit envious.

But you see, that's been the Liberal and NDP propaganda....trying to make us all think that Harper is this wide-eyed boy idolizing Bush!

I took notice of Harper when as an Opposition leader, he stood up and gave his support to the US.

He was the only one...who did not mince around. You know it was out of principle. He believe it was the right thing to do and he was not afraid to say it...even if it meant the possible end of his political career.

Just because he believe in the same principle as Bush...does not have to mean that he is a follower.

I would rather see him called a "follower" then when he acts on principle....than by having him act like.....like the Liberals... just so it can't be said that they are US "followers."

[jdobbin]

I took notice of Harper when as an Opposition leader, he stood up and gave his support to the US.

He was the only one...who did not mince around. You know it was out of principle. He believe it was the right thing to do and he was not afraid to say it...even if it meant the possible end of his political career.

He also said Canada should go to Iraq. Why is he mincing around now?

[jbg]

There were activities prior to Lend-Lease. Lend-Lease made public what wasbeing done in secret before.

I don't think there is much patting on the back to be done for taking a powder while other nations did the fighting.

As far a secret lend lease, it must have been so tiny that Congress was barely aware of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_hist...ng_World_War_II

Jdobin, let me make one thing clear. As a Jew, I am appalled by America's stand prior to entering the war. The US's position in not joining both Wars on behalf of the people whom they shared deep, very deep ties of blood, language, business and culture is a moral blot that will never go away.

Further, my people took a 33% population hit while both Franklin Delano Roosevelt and William Lyon Mackenzie King (may they share a room in h*ll together) "took a powder" on rescuing productive, hardworking Jewish potential immigrants, preferring to see them die. Now, both of ou countries are filling up on immigrants that don't want to learn our language and culture, and in many cases contribute nothing.

The entire free world paid a high price for the US's moral ambiguity with regard to entering both wars, but WW II especially. And your country is not wholly innocent on the fate of the Jews.

[jdobbin]

Jdobin, let me make one thing clear. As a Jew, I am appalled by America's stand prior to entering the war. The US's position in not joining both Wars on behalf of the people whom they shared deep, very deep ties of blood, language, business and culture is a moral blot that will never go away.

Further, my people took a 33% population hit while both Franklin Delano Roosevelt and William Lyon Mackenzie King (may they share a room in h*ll together) "took a powder" on rescuing productive, hardworking Jewish potential immigrants, preferring to see them die. Now, both of ou countries are filling up on immigrants that don't want to learn our language and culture, and in many cases contribute nothing.

The entire free world paid a high price for the US's moral ambiguity with regard to entering both wars, but WW II especially. And your country is not wholly innocent on the fate of the Jews.

Never said Canada was free of blame in its actions prior to the war. King acted wretchedly in many ways.

But Canada, as a nation, debated the merits of going to war in 1939 and decided that the invasion of Poland was where the line was drawn. The U.S. didn't have that debate and despite FDR's sympathies, there was very little done for two years until France was defeated and Britain was fighting for its life. Canada was the lifeline in the Atlantic.

As far as the Liberal Party, it has its fair share of people who are pissing off segments of the Jewish population but Paul Martin himself had the full support of that community. The Liberal leadership campaign made it impossible to have a coherent message on the war in Lebanon. In years past though Liberals have backed Israel's right to exist time and time again. That message has not changed.

As far as immigration goes, I don't know that I see as big a problem as you do. By the third generation, most of the old loyalties are gone in favour of Canada.

[WestViking]

I took notice of Harper when as an Opposition leader, he stood up and gave his support to the US.

He was the only one...who did not mince around. You know it was out of principle. He believe it was the right thing to do and he was not afraid to say it...even if it meant the possible end of his political career.

He also said Canada should go to Iraq. Why is he mincing around now?

Provide the quote please.

Harper has not advocated sending troops to Iraq for the simple reason we don't have the troops to send, irrespective of what Jack Layton may choose to say. We are committed to the NATO action in Afghanistan until 2009 and will not have the resources to allow a military commitment elsewhere before that.

We have and are providing training personnel for Iraqi police units but the training is not done in Iraq.

[jbg]

Never said Canada was free of blame in its actions prior to the war. King acted wretchedly in many ways.

That's not your everyday "oops". Lots of Jews needlessly died, and as I pointed out now you're filling up space with non-workers.

But Canada, as a nation, debated the merits of going to war in 1939 and decided that the invasion of Poland was where the line was drawn.

The only "debate" was how long to lag behind Britain to illustrate independence.

The U.S. didn't have that debate and despite FDR's sympathies, there was very little done for two years until France was defeated and Britain was fighting for its life. Canada was the lifeline in the Atlantic.

FDR was sympathetic to everyone, much the way one is at a funeral.

As far as the Liberal Party, it has its fair share of people who are pissing off segments of the Jewish population but Paul Martin himself had the full support of that community.

He shouldn't have that support. Paul Martin mostly dithered rather than came down decisively for Israel.

The Liberal leadership campaign made it impossible to have a coherent message on the war in Lebanon. In years past though Liberals have backed Israel's right to exist time and time again. That message has not changed.

Yes, until John Napier Turner's leadership, that is. After then, there was little devotion to Israel.

As far as immigration goes, I don't know that I see as big a problem as you do. By the third generation, most of the old loyalties are gone in favour of Canada.

Proof?

[jdobbin]

Oh, there are several.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/iraq.html

"We should have been there, shoulder to shoulder with our allies."

He has changed his view now. That is why I say he is mincing around.

Even the military says there are about a thousand troops that could be committed if needed to combat.

[WestViking]

Oh, there are several.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/iraq.html

"We should have been there, shoulder to shoulder with our allies."

He has changed his view now. That is why I say he is mincing around.

Even the military says there are about a thousand troops that could be committed if needed to combat.

Ypou missed quoting the lead article in the piece your cite:

"If I were prime minister, we would not be involved in Iraq. I would encourage the Americans and hope they're successful, but our government would not be there." Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, Dec. 13, 2005 at a press conference in Trenton, Ont.

'Standing shoulder to shoulder' does not mean committing troops we do not have. However, when Iraq was invaded we had a large portion of our navy and a substantial air force segment in the theatre of war, but the Liberals refused to admit it. Yoou are barking up the wrong tree for the wrong reasons.

[jdobbin]

That's not your everyday "oops". Lots of Jews needlessly died, and as I pointed out now you're filling up space with non-workers.

The only "debate" was how long to lag behind Britain to illustrate independence.

FDR was sympathetic to everyone, much the way one is at a funeral.

He shouldn't have that support. Paul Martin mostly dithered rather than came down decisively for Israel.

Yes, until John Napier Turner's leadership, that is. After then, there was little devotion to Israel.

Proof?

That illustration of independence was rather important, don't you think? Canada didn't enter the war as a subject of Britain or part of British forces afterall.

I can't think of anti-Israel votes at the U.N. by Paul Martin. Can you? In fact, Paul Martin was considered far more pro-Israel than Harper. Some of the Liberals supporting Harper now said they would still be Liberals if Martin were PM. The Liberal leadership campaign and poor performace of MPs is responisble for some of that lost support. A new leader will likely restore a lot of that support.

As a very great leader of a very great democracy once said: "A proof is a proof (Link) What kind of proof ? It's a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it is proven."

[jdobbin]

Ypou missed quoting the lead article in the piece your cite:

"If I were prime minister, we would not be involved in Iraq. I would encourage the Americans and hope they're successful, but our government would not be there." Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, Dec. 13, 2005 at a press conference in Trenton, Ont.

'Standing shoulder to shoulder' does not mean committing troops we do not have. However, when Iraq was invaded we had a large portion of our navy and a substantial air force segment in the theatre of war, but the Liberals refused to admit it. Yoou are barking up the wrong tree for the wrong reasons.

This was said after he was quoted as saying the exact opposite. Check the rest of the article.

By 2005, it was obvious the war was not going well. The message changed.

And what didn't the Liberal government not admit? They were still in support of the interdiction that the U.N. supported.

And troops were not available in 2005 but they were certainly available when Harper said they should be in Iraq.

[betsy]

He also said Canada should go to Iraq. Why is he mincing around now?

Why, can't one not change one's decision if one sees that things had changed?

Does a commander not change his strategies in the middle of a war...just because he already committed himself by saying he would do it that way?

Should a leader still stubbornly push through if he sees that it will be wiser and more pracrtical to do things differently?

As you said in the post above, the war is not doing very well. The message has changed.

Well, what's wrong about that? It only tells me that he is truly practicing sound leadership by using his common sense.

We don't even have to look far into foreign affairs to see the cost we bear due to the conceited folly of previous leaders!

Just look at the Liberals!

Look at all the money wasted on social programs that did not work out the way they're meant to, costing far more than they were supposed to....and yet, those leaders stubbornly kept them going!

[jdobbin]

Why, can't one not change one's decision if one sees that things had changed?

Does a commander not change his strategies in the middle of a war...just because he already committed himself by saying he would do it that way?

Should a leader still stubbornly push through if he sees that it will be wiser and more pracrtical to do things differently?

We don't even have to look far into foreign affairs to see the cost we bear due to the conceited folly of previous leaders! Just look at the Liberals! Look at all the money wasted on social programs that did not work out the way they're supposed to, costing far more than they were supposed to....and yet, those leaders stubbornly kept them going!

With the Liberals you would have called it dithering.

Had he had his chance to send troops to Iraq, I wonder how long the Tories would have lasted in power.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Nobody ever accused Chretien of dithering.

Only Paul Martin was called a ditherer.

There is a fine line between the occasional change of policy in reaction to changing circumstances and constantly changing your mind and priorities. Do you see a difference or are you too blinded in your support of the Fliberals?

With the Liberals you would have called it dithering.

Had he had his chance to send troops to Iraq, I wonder how long the Tories would have lasted in power.

[jdobbin]

Nobody ever accused Chretien of dithering.

Only Paul Martin was called a ditherer.

There is a fine line between the occasional change of policy in reaction to changing circumstances and constantly changing your mind and priorities. Do you see a difference or are you too blinded in your support of the Fliberals?

Actually, the term started with Chretien. Can't you remember that? It was during the Iraq debate. The Conservatives were very certain of what the policy should be and said the Liberals were dithering and should commit to Iraq.

And this wasn't just some little change that Harper made. It was a complete about face. And he hasn't really given a reason why he now thinks that Canada should not be in Iraq. In fact, he has basically refused to discuss it.

[Hicksey]

Nobody ever accused Chretien of dithering.

Only Paul Martin was called a ditherer.

There is a fine line between the occasional change of policy in reaction to changing circumstances and constantly changing your mind and priorities. Do you see a difference or are you too blinded in your support of the Fliberals?

Actually, the term started with Chretien. Can't you remember that? It was during the Iraq debate. The Conservatives were very certain of what the policy should be and said the Liberals were dithering and should commit to Iraq.

And this wasn't just some little change that Harper made. It was a complete about face. And he hasn't really given a reason why he now thinks that Canada should not be in Iraq. In fact, he has basically refused to discuss it.

I would hate to see the Liberals back in power but I have to admit that looks a lot like poll driven policy.

[geoffrey]

If everyone knew what the situation in Iraq would be now, no one would be there.

It's awfully high and mighty to say that Harper was wrong at the time... overwelming evidence showed that Saddam had WMD's, and posed an imminent threat to peace in the region. He had invaded neighbouring countries before. I would have and did support the mission in Iraq to remove him and his WMD's.

Sure, in the end no WMD's existed. But to Harper's best knowledge, and to the Liberals best knowledge, they did exist. It was a complete abandonment of responsible to the world for the Liberals not to have commited at least symbolic support to the Iraq mission.

It's nice that the mission didn't go as planned and no WMD's were found, worked well for the left right. Well, I still see it as they failed their duty. With the information we all had at the time, invasion was the right choice, and the Liberals failed.

So that's why Harper can easily say he doesn't want to be there now. Bush certainly does not want to be there anymore, neither do the Republicans in general... the horrible cost of retreating now though keeps them there. It was right to join the mission then, it's not right to join any longer.

That doesn't mean Canada is free from its obligations to provide humanitarian aid once peace is established.