# Harper in Kandahar



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I don't care what the PM's political stripes are, I'm just glad to see our national leader there meeting the men and women on the frontier. 

It takes a lot of guts to look them in the eye and say you support what they're doing, and I'm sure it means alot.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Good for Mr. Harper. Well done!


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

I feel the same way. Until now i've always felt our PM's have been hiding and acting like weak nansy pansies... bout time our PM show some balls. Maybe he'll even speak up on Global matters and bring Canada some more recognition on the Worldly level.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Just a Photo Op imo.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> Just a Photo Op imo.


I hope you're joking.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MLeh said:


> I hope you're joking.



You know how it is...you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

If he goes it's a photo op, if he doesn't, he doesn't support the troops. I wonder if he brought any Timmies...?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ottawaman said:


> Just a Photo Op imo.


Anyone who has the courage to go into a war zone where his countryman have died deserves respect. 

Photo op? Gimme a break. Either that or get real.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Why bring the press?

So I'm a cynic, heap it on.


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

Whether photo op, or not... He's still out there making a statement. Better then not at all...

and if it was all for press, why didnt they hype it up before he went? he did just pick up and go didnt he?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ottawaman said:


> Why bring the press?
> 
> So I'm a cynic, heap it on.


Is something so basic so hard to understand?

Can you even begin to imagine how the press would come down on him for the missed opportunity if he did not invite them?

And why go in secret?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I'm sure I'm not the only Canadian who will view this as a new leader trying to look the part. This will certainly be touted when this minority government attempts to push itself into a majority government in the next election.
Once again, just my opinion.
I'm not trying to offend anyone.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

It's kept quiet for security reasons, you don't want to give the Taliban a chance to prepare an attach. It would be a big symbolic victory if they managed to pop his plane or mount a ground attach of some sort.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i sure hope that harpo can make time to speak to canada's political watchdog regarding the grewal and emerson affairs
is it me or does harpo seem to be a bit heavier than usual?
i don't recall his paunch being that big


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

He's a politician. Everything he does is a photo op, whether he likes it or not.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

kps said:


> It's kept quiet for security reasons, you don't want to give the Taliban a chance to prepare an attach. It would be a big symbolic victory if they managed to pop his plane or mount a ground attach of some sort.



Exactly so!


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Is it just me, or did I hear GWB say the same sorts of things about the American presence in Iraq!? Long Haul, Fight "Terrorisim", Spread freedom!? What up with Dat! I mean, yeah, if you are going to take away one third of a country's economy, yeah, you will have to help them out for a while, but this type of military occupation is KooKoo Bananas!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Ottawaman said:


> Why bring the press?
> 
> So I'm a cynic, heap it on.


All the world's a neon stage and we are merely players, performers and portrayers... each another's audience outside the gilded cage.


----------



## JPL (Jan 21, 2005)

ehMax said:


> All the world's a neon stage and we are merely players, performers and portrayers... each another's audience outside the gilded cage.


Wish I'd said that


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vinnie Cappuccino said:


> Is it just me, or did I hear GWB say the same sorts of things about the American presence in Iraq!? Long Haul, Fight "Terrorisim", Spread freedom!? What up with Dat! I mean, yeah, if you are going to take away one third of a country's economy, yeah, you will have to help them out for a while, but this type of military occupation is KooKoo Bananas!


maybe David Frum is ghost writing for Harpo now?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> is it me or does harpo seem to be a bit heavier than usual?
> i don't recall his paunch being that big


I can't say I've been paying enough attention to see any difference, but I don't see the point of this comment.

I don't mind folks complaining about a politicians policies, but I don't see what is gained by commenting on his or her level of fitness, unless they become so unfit that it impacts their ability to do their job.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

"God bless Canada."

At one point Harper said that they would "stay as long as he was Prime Minister of this nation". I guess he didn't realize where he was.

He also brought up 9/11 (which is why we are there) and said that 2000 Canadians died in those attacks? Does that sound wrong to anyone else?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Just a little wrong. Are you sure that's what he said?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

It sounded like he said Canadians. Perhaps he just mis-spoke. But if he meant Americans the number doesn't match up either.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> I can't say I've been paying enough attention to see any difference, but I don't see the point of this comment.
> 
> I don't mind folks complaining about a politicians policies, but I don't see what is gained by commenting on his or her level of fitness, unless they become so unfit that it impacts their ability to do their job.


gee, one can't make an observation anymore?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

I've always been proud of the Canadian Military's role as peacekeepers and help in rebuilding shattered lives and countries but Harper has indicated his support for this "war on terrorism" that Bush is pushing before. That makes me "twitchy"... I do not wish for this country to become involved in that on the level that Bush has. 

We've always been respected in the world community... it would pain me to see us lumped in with the Americans now. IMO it's easy to understand some people's cynicism and mistrust as to what Harper does with regard to this.

Does anyone have a good link as to what was done and said during that visit of Harper's to Kandahar?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> gee, one can't make an observation anymore?


The same sort of off-topic complaining constantly, amongst other things that don't need mentioning again? That puts you on a special pedestal. 

Do you have problem with Harper's trip, aside from general complaining about the world not adhering to your agenda?

This seemed like a good idea and a good photo op. There's nothing wrong when those two pursuits align. The best photo ops are the genuine good ideas, to me.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> The same sort of off-topic complaining constantly, amongst other things that don't need mentioning again? That puts you on a special pedestal.
> 
> Do you have problem with Harper's trip, aside from general complaining about the world not adhering to your agenda?
> 
> This seemed like a good idea and a good photo op. There's nothing wrong when those two pursuits align. The best photo ops are the genuine good ideas, to me.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

oh yeah, pointing out that harpo may have put on a few pounds is "complaining"
is he some sort of sacred golden veal?

he is a servant of the people and for some odd reason he cannot find the time to meet Shapiro re: Grewal and Emerson


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Do you have problem with Harper's trip, aside from general complaining about the world not adhering to your agenda?.


It seems more about Canadian not wanting the troops there and Harper using marketing and publicity to try and change that.
This was not to support the troops - hell, I would of approved of that. Harpers trip is one of propaganda and coupled with lies and his normal exaggerations. 
So Canadians are rightfully weary of the Hawks and the Cons agenda, what do you do? Well, use patriotism, deceit and lies.... Worked for Bush, will work for this buffoon in office... Most Canadians will tell you it's great that he went but his trying to score political points ABOVE all is disgusting... 
"Of course standing up for these things, standing up for core Canadian values, taking on the dangers you're taking on, these things are not easy. It's never easy, particularly for the men and women who are on the front lines. And there maybe some who want to cut and run but cutting and running is not your way, it is not my way, and it is not the Canadian way. We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We don't and we will not as long as I'm leading this country. 

"Friends, we've made a great deal of real progress here. Your work is vital to Canada, to the free world, and to the Afghan people. As you get ready to go back to work know that I am behind you, your government is behind you and most importantly the Canadian people are all behind you."
SH
What a load of deceiving politics - Bush and Rove have to be proud....

Until a proper debate on our expanded role and the consequences; bring home our soldiers in body bags....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I tend to get worried when a Prime Minister (or President of the US, for that matter) uses the phrase "We shall not cut and run." It makes for a good sound bite, but one needs a leader who has a sense of history and an understanding of the realities of a prolonged and proactive military situation.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Well... *this* Canadian feels some uncertainty as whether our troops should be in Afghanistan or not.

My question is are we there to do what Canadians have always done best and have every right to be proud of... help a "post war" country get back on it's feet... that I support completely. Or... are we there to help fight this insane war on terrorism that was not officially sanctioned or declared by anyone but Bush? That I can not support.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"My question is are we there to do what Canadians have always done best and have every right to be proud of... help a "post war" country get back on it's feet... that I support completely. Or... are we there to help fight this insane war on terrorism that was not officially sanctioned or declared by anyone but Bush? That I can not support." A relevant and realistic question to ask, Dreambird. We all need to have a sense of why we are there and what options we have for not being in Afghanistan. A public debate is needed.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

as Dr. G. mentioned in another thread, in another time, the best way to support our troops is to "Bring them home"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm with on that Dr. G - war making and peace making are very different.
I suspect we're already across the line.

I'm most curious as to Afghan's view of our efforts.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Dr G and others...

This is a NATO mission. Canada is a major member of NATO. That is why Canadian troops were asked to go and why our former Prime Minister, Mr Martin agreed without any debate. Our current government is honoring the commitment made to NATO. 

Other countries with troops in Afghanistan include England, Italy, Germany, France (YES, France), Spain and Holland. There is also Australia, New Zealand and Albania which are non-NATO members.

I didn't like the idea when Martin committed our troops for this mission but he did. It's a done deal. The time for debate will come at the end of the time period we agreed to.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

when it comes to putting people in harms way, debate should never end


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Mr Martin et al knew full well our troops were going to be put in harms way. This was NO secret. It was on the front page of EVERY newspaper. The General in charge warned LAST YEAR that there would be deaths.

I'd like to know why all the fuss and screaming now? Where were you folks when this was in the planing stage? Why weren't you hooting and hollering then? Why weren't there mass demonstrations against the Liberal party?

Canada has a commitment. We agreed to participate. If Canada were to pull out of that deal what country would ever respect us again. Who would respect someone who's word could not be trusted?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It is a good role for NATO in my mind. I'd PREFER our role to be different but we are a part of NATO and have commitments to keep.

I'm probably typical as this recent poll finds.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...ghanistan_poll_060313/20060313?hub=TopStories



> *Qualified support for Afghan mission: poll*
> Updated Mon. Mar. 13 2006 10:04 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


I'd count myself amongst the "some misunderstanding crowd" - I was not fully aware of the NATO aspect of this.

Worth reading the entire article....we are "conflicted" over this - yes horrible pun but only TOO appropo.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

adagio said:


> Mr Martin et al knew full well our troops were going to be put in harms way. This was NO secret. It was on the front page of EVERY newspaper. The General in charge warned LAST YEAR that there would be deaths.
> 
> I'd like to know why all the fuss and screaming now? Where were you folks when this was in the planing stage? Why weren't you hooting and hollering then? Why weren't there mass demonstrations against the Liberal party?
> 
> Canada has a commitment. We agreed to participate. If Canada were to pull out of that deal what country would ever respect us again. Who would respect someone who's word could not be trusted?


yeah, what country can respect the USA ever again after their lies in Iraq?

dead bodies have a nasty habit of changing people's opinion
at least our media is allowed to show the dead coming home unlike the land of the stars and stripes that learned their lesson from Vietnam

in the end the people get to decide when enough is enough
it is our military and the politicians are supposed to be our representatives and serve our interests even if they change

how many bodies is enough?

one should never close debate on such things such as war

change is the only constant in the universe


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

MacDoc, please don't misunderstand my posts. I'd much rather Canada was playing a different role too. I'm just surprised that everyone didn't realize what was coming down the pipe. I knew and assumed everyone else would have read the same news stories as I about a year ago.

The Canadian public was never really prepared for this. Canada hasn't had a true combat role since Korea, I don't believe. I'm afraid for our troops but they seem prepared for what it is they must do and I've yet to read anywhere where they don't want to be there... and believe me, I've looked.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Thanks for that link MacDoc... 



> I'd count myself amongst the "some misunderstanding crowd" - I was not fully aware of the NATO aspect of this.


I would fall into that category as well.

The length of time our troops are in Afghanistan is not so important to me as determining if this is for peacekeeping and improving the Afghani's lives... I believe we were in Cyprus for a long time but that mission was justifiable to me. What I know of it as it goes back to a time I don't remember very well. 

I'm listening to an excellent report on CBC news right now on the issue of debate. Apparently the Dutch are allowed to debate these things but Canadians are not... go figure...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Adg - I got your drift and it's a very good point ..certainly served as a "take notice" call for me. I was vaguely aware of the import of "taking over from the yanks" but had not thought it through. Looks like it's sinking in for the rest of the country as the poll indicates but I'd guess we're in for some navel gazing as part of the process.

•••••


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

adagio said:


> *This is a NATO mission*. Canada is a major member of NATO. That is why Canadian troops were asked to go and why our former Prime Minister, Mr Martin agreed without any debate. Our current government is honoring the commitment made to NATO.


It was a NATO mission - hence the need for a debate now.



> "We're a democracy, after all, and we're trying to establish a fully-functioning democracy in Afghanistan as the stated purpose of the mission," NDP Leader Jack Layton said Monday.
> "It seems ironic that we wouldn't want to have a discussion here about such a mission, given that a democratic society such as ours would always want to have an open discussion as to what's going on."
> Layton noted that the NDP originally supported the deployment of troops to Afghanistan in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Back then, however, the mission was supposed to focus on rebuilding the country, under the auspices of NATO, and was based in relatively stable Kabul.
> *Now the mission has moved to perilous Kandahar, and falls under the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom.*
> That important change in status means the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois are rethinking party policy on the mission. They want a parliamentary debate to answer some questions.


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=9555d69c-31d4-438c-8026-e346630e0fd9&k=51750


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Harper and his speech writers have used the wrong language and in my view negated any positive aspect to our presence...


> "*We're not going to cut and run*," said Paul Bremer, the US administrator for Iraq. "We're here to get the job done and will stay until the job is done."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/17/nbush317.xml


> '*We won't cut and run'*
> PM counters critics; Canada in Afghanistan for long term, Harper says


http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet...=8763b445-857e-403e-99cd-fd601ea5cb32&k=52433


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Harper and his speech writers have used the wrong language and in my view negated any positive aspect to our presence...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/17/nbush317.xml
> 
> http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet...=8763b445-857e-403e-99cd-fd601ea5cb32&k=52433


That language should satisfy the Americans.


----------



## JPL (Jan 21, 2005)

Open and continued debate is a democratic mainstay. As circumstances are changed by the events we must re-evaluate our position and its viability. If we refuse to continually rethink our position and strategy we fail our troops and ourselves. We run the risk of becoming like the USA, entrenched in an un-winnable and economically devastating war. 

AN ASIDE RANT
I hope G. Bush and company rot in hell, their greed, lies, manipulations and unwavering resolve to control oil have caused pain and suffering beyond belief.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

On my blog, Hooting and Hollering is all I do, Last year, the year before that, and I will continue. 

There will be a little Hoot and holler event going on at Farmers Market, in downtown Halifax on March the 18th at noon. There will be a guest speaker, so be there to Hoot and Holler along with me if ya can make it!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I support what we are doing in Afghanistan. We also made the right choice on Iraq in not supporting the US invasion. Let's not confuse the two issues and let animosity against the Bush admin affect our judgement on Afghanistan.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I support what we are doing in Afghanistan. ... Let's not confuse the two issues


Fair enough - please remind that to the Cons....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmmm Star cartoonist seems "confused" too










Pretty blunt.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Well... I've tried to inform myself a little better regarding the nature of our involvement in Afghanistan... I'm still thinking... I have reservations.

I think what still sticks in my craw is how the world completely turned it's back on Rwanda in 1994 and about a million people ended up dead in a genocide that's been compared to the Holocaust. It left the Canadian Soldier trying his damned best to help in shambles healthwise... the whole thing was inexcuseable and a complete travesty. Now I hear the potential for the same exists in the Sudan... what are we doing? Not much...  

However let the US crook their finger and say "c'mon boys... let's go!" and there we are...

Sounds awful cynical of me... I know but that's how I feel...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Now I hear the potential for the same exists in the Sudan... what are we doing?


Not quite the same circumstances but the potential for death on the same or greater scale is certainly there.

Look at Lord of War and tell me WHERE roots of death feed....the 5 permanent members of the Security Council


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The vetos on the Security Council have prevented and delayed needed intervention, but referring to a movie probably isn't the best way to go about it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

C'mon Beej, entertainment and reality often merge in today's society....
Talk to the Donald if you don't believe me...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Uuuh... I wasn't referring to a movie *Beej*... I did watch Hotel Rwanda but I did a ton of research on my own as to what went down too... The deaths may or may not have been a million but they were at least 800,000 from what I've seen and that's still atrocious! It was genocide... I have no doubt about that.

I've also researched the effect it had on Romeo Dallaire... I feel for him.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I would be distracted by the hair, which is good because he seems like quite an ahole anyway.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Uuuh... I wasn't referring to a movie *Beej*...


I was referring to MacDoc's post, the one immediately preceeding mine.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I think what still sticks in my craw is how the world completely turned it's back on Rwanda in 1994 and about a million people ended up dead in a genocide that's been compared to the Holocaust." An excellent point. Here is something I wrote that touches upon this subject. I would be interested in knowing what you thought of the article. Merci.

A personal reflection upon the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz

The horror of Auschwitz is a stark challenge to many to try and understand not only how this overt act of genocide could have happened, but how we allow this sort of violence to continue to take place in various parts of our world even today. Let no one think that the Holocaust was a unique event in human history, in that while it exceeded other genocides (e.g., Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan) in the numbers of innocent persons murdered, it was not different in the basic intent underlying these crimes against humanity. I think that this is why it is important to take a moment and recall the reality that was Auschwitz to ensure that deep within our own humanity we do not forget the unforgettable. For in remembering, one is forced to integrate these many lives - these trapped souls - into one's consciousness. Auschwitz must become a place that reminds the world of not only “man’s inhumanity to man”, but also the dignity of people that makes each of us responsible for world peace. The philosopher George Santayana is quoted as stating that “The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again”. To this end, we must all bear witness to what takes place within our world each day of our lives.

It is a custom in the Jewish religion to leave a pebble atop a gravestone when visiting a loved one's resting place. May this short passage serve as a pebble of remembrance for those who died in Auschwitz, as well as for those distant members of my own family who I never knew and who died in Dachau ( http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0075/dachau-39 ). “Never Again”. Shalom, Paix, Peace.

Dr. Marc Glassman
Professor
Faculty of Education
Memorial University of Newfoundland


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

....must resist temptation to poke fun at Dr. G for posting the same exact text about 8 times before....
.... or how do I ask for new insights....
...how do I poke fun at that without angering Dr. G....


PS, please don't forget the Holodomor.....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, poke away. I freely admit that I have posted this a few times before. I was curious to know Dreambird's reaction, based on what he wrote. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Thank you Dr. G - much clearer now.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, I shall be honest with you, I consider this one of the best things I have ever written, and I have written a Master's Thesis, Doctoral Dissertation, and various peer-reviewed articles and the textbooks for my seven web courses. None of those compares to the impact this article has made, at least from the reaction of people who have provided me feedback.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I guess part of the horror of the Holocaust is the survivors are still with us and the carnage so closely recorded. 

Yet who remembers the millions slaughtered by the Huns - 30% of the entire population of China.....over 1 million in a single Russian city alone - every single woman child or man beheaded ....when the population of the entire world was numbered in millions.

In my vision the Holocaust and all it's numerous memorials and films should stand in for those recorded and unrecorded millions throughout history that fell to the sword of barbarians.

To be inclusive of all like the Armenians, those in Kosovo, Rwanda, Ukraine, Herat, wherever unspeakable horrors are inflicted upon innocents

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#20worst

It would be an inspiration to see a wider inclusion of ALL these horrors within our own minds and within literature and monuments and memorials so that the *The Holocaust* comes not to represent just the specific event........ but all such.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

*Dr.G.*... I think it's a great article... I thank you for mentioning that genocide continues still to this day in other places and that is the reason I think we must never forget... clearly we still haven't outgrown our violent tendencies as a species that brings these things on.

I've always said so... never forget! I'd like to see some healing of the wounds which is a necessary thing to move on IMO. But I do wish human kind would *learn the lesson* and soon!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Never forget needs to be matched with doing something.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> I guess part of the horror of the Holocaust is the survivors are still with us and the carnage so closely recorded.
> 
> Yet who remembers the millions slaughtered by the Huns - 30% of the entire population of China.....over 1 million in a single Russian city alone - every single woman child or man beheaded ....when the population of the entire world was numbered in millions.
> 
> ...


and to that though of inclusiveness;



> Multicultural Coalition Calls Upon Prime Minister Harper to Review Funding
> 
> For Immediate Release (Toronto - 28 February 2006)
> 
> ...


just and right cause


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thank you for the feedback, Dreambird. It was appreciated. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good point, MacDoc. My grandparents came from the part of Czarist Russia, which is now Ukraine. After the Russian Revolution, what Stalin did there in the forced-starvation genocide against those in Ukraine, needs to be remembered as still another example of what people are capable of doing to those in their own country.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It would be interesting to get more personal stories out of Iraq to shape a body of knowledge about the atrocities committed there. There is much work to do, and remembering and spreading of knowledge is important to raising public interest enough to gain support for more prevention, rather than the treadmill we're on now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think any such museum that is publicly funded needs to be inclusive and that where groups and societies contribute that contribution be acknowledged and their view represented *within historical consensus.*

The latter may be a difficult issue - remembering the victims not blaming the perpetrators as that aspect likely creates more tension and conflict than heals minds or serves as a caution.

From state policy, to destructive memes, to cult leaders to individuals in power over others - we ARE a violent species and in my mind the horrors of the victims should be front and centre so they need not have died in vain and unremembered.

THEIR legacy???....a caution and cause for peaceful conflict resolution for present and future humans and human institutions.

•••

AS - good works.....or words...bear repetition. 

••

Bj - why focus on atrocities - rather focus on supporting the moderate Iranians who chafe under a theocracy. 
Change MUST come from within and let the citizens then deal with the atrocities as Chile and South Africa and other states emerging from repressive regimes are doing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Bj - why focus on atrocities - rather focus on supporting the moderate Iranians who chafe under a theocracy.
> Change MUST come from within and let the citizens then deal with the atrocities as Chile and South Africa and other states emerging from repressive regimes are doing.


It's not a question of focus, it's a question of doing more than remembering and encouraging. We can have faith that eventually everyone's nation will change from within (with trade sanctions etc... like South Africa) and wait for fulfillment. That is an option that will lead to very large museums paying tribute to our noble inaction and kind words. 

The same principles behind helping those in need within our borders applies to those without, constricted by far more complex issues and implications so that we are careful to intervene. However, doing nothing but remembering and encouraging is not an option anymore than erecting a purely libertarian state with museums remembering poverty and violence is an option. Every modern nation has chosen some degree of help for others (not arguing about which degree is right) because we know inaction and remembering are not enough. Encouraging change from within is valuable and inadequate, as we've learned over the years. We can wait for the 1000 year lesson our societies learned and hope that others move faster with our encouragement (not slower for various reasons) or we can pick the most egregious examples and really help. We aren't doing that now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So to condense verbosity - find out what WE think they did that was disgusting and We should

a) judge them on it
b) intervene.

 spare me.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So to condense verbosity - find out what WE think they did that was disgusting and We should
> 
> a) judge them on it
> b) intervene.
> ...


A very MacDocian summary, showing little desire to understand and much desire to use the  emoticon. He who is Right.

To condense your posts in the same manner: Let them die, we'll build a museum in their honour. The museum will be easy to expand. Do whatever you want, as long as you don't attack us because we're busy building museums and sending encouraging emails.

Unfair, I should think, and beneath you to condense my post in such a manner.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Good point, MacDoc. My grandparents came from the part of Czarist Russia, which is now Ukraine. After the Russian Revolution, what Stalin did there in the forced-starvation genocide against those in Ukraine, needs to be remembered as still another example of what people are capable of doing to those in their own country.


Marc,
The "forced-starvation genocide against those in Ukraine" is known as the "Holodomor"


> While the famine in Ukraine was a part of a wider famine that also affected other regions of the USSR, the term Holodomor is specifically applied to the events that took place in territories populated by the ethnic Ukrainians. As such, the Holodomor is sometimes referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide, or even the Ukrainian Holocaust, implying that the Holodomor was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target the Ukrainian people in order to destroy the Ukrainian nation as a political factor and social entity
> ...
> The term Holodomor is derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (?????? ???????), which means "to inflict death by hunger". The fourth Saturday of November is the official day of commemoration of the Holodomor victims in Ukraine.
> ...
> ...


and yet there are still those today that deny this horrifict event



> While the famine was well documented at the time, its reality has been disputed by some for reasons of ideology, such as the Soviet government and its spokespeople (as well as apologists of the Soviet regime), by others due to being deliberately misled by the Soviet government (such as George Bernard Shaw), and in at least one case, Walter Duranty, for personal gain.
> 
> An example of a late-era Holodomor objector is Canadian journalist Douglas Tottle, author of Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (1987). Tottle claims that while there were severe economic hardships in Ukraine, the idea of the Holodomor was fabricated as propaganda by Nazi Germany and William Randolph Hearst, to justify a German invasion. Tottle is not a professional historian and his work did not receive any serious attention in the historiography of the subject.


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



> At the height of the Famine:
> Ukrainian villages were dying at the rate of 25,000 per day or 1,000 per hour or 17 per minute


I look forward to the day when denial of the Holodomor is viewed with the same indignation and disdain as those that would deny the Holocaust.

To borrow a phrase; "Never again."


----------



## Canuckmakem (Jan 12, 2006)

I just got a picture from a buddy currently serving of him with the PM taken the other day. 

As an ex-soldier it is good to see the PM over there.... it does really boost morale a little.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It is good to hear from a vet on the issue. thanks for your input and thanks for your service.

Wish your buddy well from all of us.


----------



## Canuckmakem (Jan 12, 2006)

I will.... he's doing fine so far. Although I'm glad I'm out (I served 8 years in the British Army) as I'm not sure I'd be happy going there to implement US foreign policy.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Canuckmakem said:


> I will.... he's doing fine so far. Although I'm glad I'm out (I served 8 years in the British Army) as I'm not sure I'd be happy going there to implement US foreign policy.


but i thought we were there to help the Afghani people?

i hope that debate about our soldiers being in harms way never ends
they deserve to know that they will only be there as long as it is absolutely necessary


----------



## Canuckmakem (Jan 12, 2006)

Agreed but I also hope that when the comitment it up we get the hell outta there.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Canuckmakem said:


> Agreed but I also hope that when the comitment it up we get the hell outta there.


i did take note that harper, when asked by reporters, did not confirm an extension to Canada's committment in Afghanistan


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

Speaking of Genocide, parts of Iraq are on fire tonight as a large US airstrike searches for "insurgents." If the US occupation has had a hand in the killing of 100,000 or 37754 or 33638 civilians - men, women and children - is this not a genocide? By God's or UN standards or by my own? 

We need our troops to be police, or peacekeepers at the most, not serving as the executioner for another country. Invest some money into their economy, build a sh*tload of schools, hospitals, infrastructure projects, give them well trained police, build a lasting relationship. That's what we do best, actually helping countries, being pretty good cops (but not always). Business is so chickensh*t they wont even give our troops a cup of coffee. We better be prepared to pay in $$$ as well as lives. If we really want to support our troops lets raise taxes to pay for what they need, and don't just take it from the poor. 

Our troops are strong enough to understand that we can support their effort while making sure we're doing the right thing back home. Those who use the military as a shield to stop debate are cowards. Being in Afghanistan takes guts, that's it. We have an even greater responsibility to use our heads. 

Let's contribute to everything we can, just not to all the killing.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

unfortunately halliburton et al are not in the business of building infrastructure
they are in the war machine business which is far more profitable and once muntions are used they need replacing

i heartily agree that the best way to "win a country" is through education of the populace, creation of a viable economy

odds are that a people busy legally (not thru poppy sales) and peacefully earning money, supporting their families and with hope for a future will not breed factions hell bent on mass violence


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I dunno, with seriously lucrative cash crops like that, it's tough to ignore the profit margins. It's a complex issue - if all the nations of the 'consuming' part of the world suddenly legalized the drugs with the intent of rendering such crops a great deal less profitable, there's all the problems of dealing with the domestic situation at home... too many addicts, all of them looking for help from the state - help to get free, or simply another fix.

Until such time as the world's peoples as a whole decides that the blood money from drugs and ammo is too great a price to pay, poor people everywhere are going to continue to try and make a buck growing poppy plants and other 'goodies.' The temptations are merely too great. Stop growing it in one village, another village the next mountain over will double up on production. Moving target.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah kinda hyprocitical - Germany can grown hops for it's "intoxicating" beer but no marijuna from Mexico and worse, no hemp either 

Holland does okay - there will ALWAYS be addicts so treat it as it is - a health problem and lose the profit margin.

'Course then their will always be some way to turn an illegal buck but look how gambling is relatively well controlled now as is alcohol and both funnel $$ to other causes.

Hemp needs to be returned as a real crop and morphine AND heroine as a real painkiller - then the poppie crops can serve medical needs.
Perhaps the vaccine in a plant market will help.
No easy answers BUT the current abolition method is clearly a joke as it was with alcohol and gambling.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

CamCanola said:


> We need our troops to be police, or peacekeepers at the most, not serving as the executioner for another country.


Is that really the path of least violence?

If we don't forcefully stop warlords, taliban, extremists and terrorists, their country will fall into another civil war. 

The same goes for Iraq. If the US pulls out, it will turn into a civil war.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> If we don't forcefully stop ...


Who is WE?? ..there is no current structure to legally undertake the invasion of a sovereign nation beyond the UN. and that is fraught with perils and incredibly slow.

There is not even a really adequate structure to deal with domestic violence within a family in many first world nations. ( rights of families versu state interference )

There ARE reasonable facilities for dealing with violence outside the family within Canada itself. 
Yet even BETWEEN first world nations dealing with "criminal acts" has a ponderous mechanism.

So ....who is WE??.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Who is WE?? ..there is no current structure to legally undertake the invasion of a sovereign nation beyond the UN. and that is fraught with perils and incredibly slow.


Something to work towards. 'no current structure' and 'fraught with perils' are very difficult challenges. Maybe if we could move some of the political spotlight from who took $5 million and who isn't talking to the media enough, we could do a bit more for people beyond our prosperous borders.

Try not to grossly mischaracterize my post this time. I know you seem to feel the need to, but you've got a lot more to add than fabricated opportunities to  and  .


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You and others seem to have this propensity like Bush to get on your Crusader horse and rally some *WE* off into the sunset to attack some threatening windmill or another.

You get the  deservedly - no manufacturing needed.

The concept is "due process" over national boundaries and it's no easy task..... unless you are of the "white hat" six shooter mentality.

Try reading Shake Hands to see just how hard "due process" is even in the face of horror right under your wheels.

...and yes the shackles of "due process" on peace keepers are exploited by those who would wreak havoc.....comes with the task.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You and others seem to have this propensity like Bush to get on your Crusader horse and rally some *WE* off into the sunset to attack some threatening windmill or another.


We includes any progressive nation that wants to stand against state sponsored terrorism.

If you don't see how a govenment harbouring terrorists like Bin Laden and allowing terror training camps on their soil is a threat to Canada, then you need to get your head out of your ass.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> If you don't see how a govenment harbouring terrorists like Bin Laden and allowing terror training camps on their soil is a threat to Canada, then you need to get your head out of your ass.


Or at the very least, the sand.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Is that really the path of least violence?
> 
> If we don't forcefully stop warlords, taliban, extremists and terrorists, their country will fall into another civil war.


You mean the same warlords, Taliban, extremist and terrorist trained by the CIA in Afghanistan to fight the Russian? Doubleplusgood my neocon friend.....
And if you don't see the irony there....



Vandave said:


> The same goes for Iraq. If the US pulls out, it will turn into a civil war.


A civil war caused power vacuum - and it's really too bad that the illegal Iraq war by the US would more death and destruction. Ironically, I'm sure that the US is responsible for more death and destruction in Iraq than Saddam ever was.... Way to go Uncle Sam....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> If you don't see how a govenment harbouring terrorists like Bin Laden and allowing terror training camps on their soil is a threat to Canada, then you need to get your head out of your ass.


And you need to get a brain....
Has Bin Laden ever really been a threat to Canada? Or has the media, politicians and hawks greatly blow this out of proportion? Has our reactions had the opposite effect? Have we not really created a self-serving boogeyman (or boogeymen)?

How many innocent have we imprisoned, killed and violated in the name of "war on terror"?

Just to place things in proportion, every month there are more gun related deaths in the US than there were victims on 9/11 - so why don't we have a "war on guns"?

VanNutt, the one who needs a rectal colostomy is you.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You mean the same warlords, Taliban, extremist and terrorist trained by the CIA in Afghanistan to fight the Russian? Doubleplusgood my neocon friend.....
> And if you don't see the irony there....


At the time, the CIA did the right thing by supplying weapons to Afghanistan. It freed Afghanistan from the Soviets and helped to end the Cold War.

Nobody at the time thought that al Qaeda would turn against the west.



ArtistSeries said:


> A civil war caused power vacuum - and it's really too bad that the illegal Iraq war by the US would more death and destruction. Ironically, I'm sure that the US is responsible for more death and destruction in Iraq than Saddam ever was.... Way to go Uncle Sam....


I didn't agree with the US invasion of Iraq. I also don't agree that you can hold them responsible for all the death and destruction that has occurred since. The US isn't responsible for the thousands of years of religious animosity and tribalism in the region. Yes, they opened Pandora's Box, but they aren't the ones who filled it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And you need to get a brain....
> Has Bin Laden ever really been a threat to Canada? Or has the media, politicians and hawks greatly blow this out of proportion? Has our reactions had the opposite effect? Have we not really created a self-serving boogeyman (or boogeymen)?.


He threatened us:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/13/osamatape021113

This is the same guy who dreamed up the attacks on 9/11. 

Heard of Ahmed Rassam? Since you live in Montreal, I imagine you have. This guy was trained at terrorist camps in Afghanistan set up by bin Laden. One of his plans involved blowing up a Jewish neighbourhood in Montreal (or using Chemical weapons). This same guy then got caught at the border with a trunk load of bomb making material. You don't see the threat here?

This religious war isn't just against the US. The Australians, Spanish and British have all been recently attacked.



ArtistSeries said:


> How many innocent have we imprisoned, killed and violated in the name of "war on terror"?
> 
> Just to place things in proportion, every month there are more gun related deaths in the US than there were victims on 9/11 - so why don't we have a "war on guns"?
> 
> VanNutt, the one who needs a rectal colostomy is you.


Who is we? I don't agree with what the US is doing in Guantanamo Bay, nor do I agree with a lot of things they are doing that are fundamentally against what democracy stands for (e.g. anti-torture, innocent until proven guilty, etc..). 

Yes the US has gone overboard with this war in a lot of ways, but at least they recognize the threat. I don't think most Canadians do.

If the terrorists get hold of chemical or nuclear weapons, it will dwarf gun related deaths.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> At the time, the CIA did the right thing by supplying weapons to Afghanistan. It freed Afghanistan from the Soviets and helped to end the Cold War.


Just another example of hypocrisies - making Orwell proud I see...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The biggest threat to security is neocons foreign policy...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep and the American public is finally waking up to that.
Funny they are yet Vandave is just ready and eager to saddle up his charger and Hey Ho into battle.



> *Gallup: 55% Now Call Iraq War a 'Mistake' *
> 
> By E&P Staff
> 
> ...


Some 80% on the planet knew it was wrong, illegal, unwise, the list of pejorative terms for the Iraq invasion is endless.

US trained and armed Saddam, Iran under the Shah and Afghan irregulars under any number of banners including Bin Laden's.
Those trained so, learned to bleed a super power dry of will and equipment and bodies and just turned the technique on the US and the other players of the 20th Century version of the Great Game.

Sow the wind reap the whirlwind was never so apt for US foreign policy. Bush is getting his just deserts even from his own citizens......it's about time. 

What is SOOOOO ironic is that the US had Bin Laden bottled up, world opinion on the US side. 
They simply turned their attention elsewhere handing Bin Laden an escape route and the greatest recruitment tool ever..........invading Iraq.
......... the rest will be a bloody history yet to be written 

..our NATO obligations put our soldiers in harms way..lttle to be done in that. I approve of our humanitarian and state building efforts in Afghanistan. I hope that the efforts of the nation builders there balance off the perception of Canadians fighting on behalf of the US. 

In my mind we are best served by taking a wide berth around anything that smacks of alignment with current US foreign policy. I very very glad the US public is growing vocal about it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Yep and the American public is finally waking up to that.
> Funny they are yet Vandave is just ready and eager to saddle up his charger and Hey Ho into battle.


My position on this has been clear... I never agreed with the invasion of Iraq.

But that decision has already been made and there is no taking it back. Would you prefer the US just let Saddam free and return their country to the way it was before? Or do you think progressive nations like Canada should view the current situation as an opportunity to make a positive change. If the US pulls out, there be a civil war. If an international force were placed in Iraq, it would stablize the country and take the wind out of the insurgents.

I think the left wing just wants to see the Bush Admin eat crow. They don't seem to care what will happen should the US pull out.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You and others seem to have this propensity like Bush to get on your Crusader horse and rally some *WE* off into the sunset to attack some threatening windmill or another.
> 
> You get the  deservedly - no manufacturing needed.
> 
> ...


Amazing response. So by wanting something done I'm not considering 'due process' and I am on my 'Crusader horse'? Do you make a conscious decision to not even attempt to understand others and just proceed with your idiotic sermonizing from the book of He who is Right?

We need a clearer and quicker 'due process' (to use your language) for choosing when to do something; a framework that isn't jerked around by whim so much. The current framework that has allowed numerous genocides with sporadic intervention and no sense of 'why' behind inaction and action is clearly inadequate.

[Edit: ehmax, just saw the problems you were having in another thread. I'll try to just ignore the treatment handed out in this thread so as not to spark more hassel.]


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Just to place things in proportion, every month there are more gun related deaths in the US than there were victims on 9/11 - so why don't we have a "war on guns"?


Interesting points you and Vandave are making. This one seemed odd. Are you sure you're got your numbers right?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Interesting points you and Vandave are making. This one seemed odd. Are you sure you're got your numbers right?


To further my point... how many Americans and Canadians were killed by the Nazis before WWII? By AS's rationale, we shouldn't have paid any attention to them.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the U.S. foreign policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is inherently flawed
when the enemy is gone, what you are left with?
"an enemy"

the US helped create Usama and the Taliban
now, for some odd reason, they don't seem to be doing well at getting rid of them
perhaps because they don't really want to get rid of them

keep the populace afraid, put a face to that fear and you have a very Orwellian state - big brother ain't just watchin' - he's protectin' ya !!!

book purchases are now being tracked in the US with more verocity than gun sales
phone calls are illegally monitored from the Bushco bunker (aka White House) with an index finger for all you civil libertarians
anything they are questioned about is answered with the mantra; "9/11"

anyone but me see something wrong with that?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"...put a face to that fear and you have a very Orwellian state - big brother ain't just watchin' - he's protectin' ya !!!" Michael, an interesting, and fairly accurate twist, to Orwell's 1984 thesis. Privacy is going to be the next explosive issue before the US Supreme Court once they move to dismantle the rights afforded to women under Roe v Wade. We shall see.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the U.S. foreign policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is inherently flawed


I think 'ally' is how they see it but -- get ready for a shock -- I actually agreed with something you said.  

Must be the mind-control additives in our toothpaste.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Quick update:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060320.wxafghanistan20/BNStory/National/home

...
"We are against a vote because it's a responsibility of the executive and because we should not second-guess when we have an important mission to succeed," Liberal foreign affairs critic Stéphane Dion said yesterday on CTV's Question Period. 
...
Mr. Dion, a possible Liberal leadership contender who is known for his combative style, engaged Ms. McDonough in debate, taking the Tory government's side. "I think the NDP wants to have their cake and eat it too," he said.

The Bloc Québécois and New Democrats continue to want both a vote and a debate, but lack the numbers in the House of Commons to make it happen.
...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

This was just sent to me. I wonder if anyone has a source for this article?

The unbearable lightness of Harper's five vows
JEFFREY SIMPSON 

As Yogi Berra once said, it's déjà vu all over again. The Conservatives have returned to office paranoid about the media, distrustful of the public service, conscious of their own inexperience and determined to manipulate as much information as possible.

Brian Mulroney used to croon that his team all had to "sing from the same hymn books." When his gang first arrived in Ottawa in 1984, orders went out that no civil servant could talk to the media and all ministerial announcements had to be approved by the Prime Minister's Office.
These rules, including the bureaucratic "gag order," soon broke down under the weight of their silliness and inability to be enforced. The same awaits the new Draconian information-control measures being imposed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on his government.

We in the media, the targets of this manipulation, are predictably unhappy, but we can be confident that the new orders to funnel everything through the PMO and restrict anyone from talking about anything other than the party's five core messages will break down, as did the Mulroney edict.
So, instead of getting worked up at this reworked silliness, we should dissect the five points that the Conservatives wish to emphasize.
They are, individually and collectively, as politically astute as they are substantively dubious, if not downright stupid.

The famous five, you might recall from the campaign, are a GST cut by one point and perhaps two, an Accountability Act, a child-care allowance, tougher sanctions in criminal law, and a patient wait-times guarantee.
Not one deals with Canada's most pressing long-term priorities to become more productive and competitive. None deal with investments in human capital that lie at the heart of a higher standard of living and a fairer society.
In almost every other country, from Finland to the United States, from Chile to China, governments are focused on these priorities. There is a kind of race among nations to move up the value-added food chain through investments in human capital, research, innovation and science.

Countries can approach this agenda from different perspectives and offer different policies, but approach it they must. Yet, in Canada, we have elected a government whose platform said next to nothing about this agenda and whose famous five policies have absolutely nothing relevant to it. Rather than engage Canadians in a debate about the worldwide agenda, the Prime Minister wants his government to talk incessantly about his five promises.
A cut to the GST represents a $5-billion political bribe. Almost no economist would recommend it, in contrast to other kinds of tax cuts. Canada has excessively higher taxes on capital and, you could argue, on income. Canada's GST is not high by international standards among countries that have a sales tax. Cutting the GST mildly stimulates an economy that doesn't need it. As politics, it's great; as economics, it stinks.

The Accountability Act, were it to resemble what's in the Conservatives' campaign document (Stand Up for Canada), will be a mishmash of non-solutions to exaggerated problems. The act will make government more cumbersome, bureaucratic and unresponsive than it already is -- and will make Conservative ministers quickly rue the day they ever implemented it. Again, as politics, it's great; as public administration, it stinks.

The daycare promise -- scrap the Liberal agreements to finance government-created spaces with cash grants to parents -- is fiscally neutral. You can argue the case either way, although if you really want daycare spaces as opposed to fiscal relief, direct spending on spaces is the way to go. As politics, it's a wash; as social policy, on balance, it's slightly negative.
The tough-on-crime stuff flies in the face of the evidence. Canada is not racked by crime. Violent crime is generally down, except in a few localized urban areas. The Tories' crime policies are an overblown response to more restricted problems.

As for the patient wait-times guarantee, that reflects the shavings on the iceberg of the health-care system. It deals with a few people who can't get treatment within a yet-to-be-defined time frame and so get shipped elsewhere. It might affect a few hundred people a year, or perhaps a thousand or two. As politics, it sounds terrific; as a contribution to health care, it's almost irrelevant.

Suppose, however, this analysis is wrong. Suppose you really believe in the famous five. Suppose you think each is excellent policy. So what?
None relate to a long-term strategy for making Canada more competitive. None help the country deal with its biggest challenges: an aging population and new international competitors. None make the health-care system sustainable. None move Canada up the value-added chain.

The famous five promises, which Commander Harper insists Conservatives talk incessantly about, are political winners and policy busts, at least in terms of what Canada needs as opposed to what the Conservatives think they need to win the next election.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr. G: A good writeup from the Globe and Mail (Friday or Saturday, maybe), although that looks like the whole thing and I'm not sure it's ok to post, especially considering it may [edit: typo] have been locked content on their site.

I agree with the general idea: people aren't talking about the really important stuff for Canada's future. A lot of partisan/anti-partisan sniping while the big issues lie fallow.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, thanks for the possible source. I can't say if it is the entire article, since this is what I received without full citation. I shall try to track it down further. Merci.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Information control, Kinsella's take:

I don't get it - what's the big deal? We did the same thing. Everyone does. As Norman Spector once said to me, all that PMO does is (a) control communications of government (b) plan cabinet shuffles and (c) plan their next trip. 
...
Note to fellow Spector non-fans, Kinsella isn't talking him up, just using him as an example, the two of them have had some bad blood in the past. All part of the weird game in this town (even sticks with you when you leave town!).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's the Globe and for pay content. I can provide a link if you wish
Here it is http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060318.COSIMP18/TPStory/?query=Mulroney+edict

Simpson is a very good writer and analyst tho hardly a Harper friend.

He was invited to write the Canada portion of the Year in 2006 for the Economist. Certainly a prestigious opportunity for a journalist and well deserved.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thank you for the citation, MacDoc. I enjoy J.Simpson's writing, as well as M.Wente's columns.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Thank you for the citation, MacDoc. I enjoy J.Simpson's writing, as well as M.Wente's columns.


Can't say I agree on Wente, but I do enjoy the dedication to variety at the Globe. Salutin is one of my favourites even though I disagree with much of what he says. I find the G&M to be a fine paper in contrast with the Torstar and Post (although the FP section still retains some of its former relevance). What is your local #1 daily and how do you feel about it?


----------

