blevkog

Lets all go to Afghanastan, bring all the people together in a soccer stadium (Afghans, Talibans, Al Quida, etc.) and have a group hug. Then everything will be fine and we can continue to live in Canada with our heads up our butts with no fear of reprisal from any other country or terrorist group. Give me a break. There's a reason the NDP only get 10% of the votes in Canada. Your goals and asperations are so narrowly defined that no one listens or share these out-dated views of society and the world.

At least they can spell AFGHANISTAN properly. Reactionary fools loose their heads first.Asshat.

I, for one, have no asperations to go to Afghanastan. Wherever the hell that is.
My understanding is that the purpose of this post was to decry the transparent jingoism involved in Harper's visit. That, and the use of brave, honourable soldiers for cynical political photo-ops. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
The bravery that comes with anonymity is nothing compared to that displayed over and over again by dedicated Canadian men and women all over the world.

Asshat?
Very, very cool. Can I borrow it?

Bravely said, anonymous. If you actually read the post, you will find nothing, not a thing, against the mission to Afghanistan. However, judging from the maturity of your response I expect the fact that it was written at higher than grade 6 level might have confused you.

As for identifying me with the NDP, which I presume you were doing with the "your goals" bit, don't be so sure. I am on their web ring, true, and my ideas largely align with theirs, but I have voted all over the political map and likely will; because I think for myself, which you seem to be having some trouble with.

I'm not one to quibble about spelling in this kind of forum, but if I'm going to go to someone else's blog and say that they have their head up their ass, I'm going to try my damndest not to look like an idiot.

Oh, and anonymous, as for "fear of reprisal from any other country or terrorist group" - lets have a government that is willing to attack the disease rather than the sympton. Ask yourself why terrorists exist. If you say something like "they hate our freedoms" or if you believe that terrorism is something you can wage a war against, then you are as stupid as I have an idea you are and you should just keep on voting Conservative.

If however, you look a little deeper you might see that the US is playing an endless game of whack-a-mole with select enemies-du-jour and are getting nowhere.

Do you want the same for Canada? Do you think that's why we are in Afghanistan? I sure as fuck hope not, because al Quaeda is now probably in a suburb of Karachi and the Taleban control most of the country that is not within NATO patrol ranges. We are going to need a hell of a larger force than we have if stamping out the Taleban is the goal.

No, we are there to hopefully to help set the basic conditions required for some modicum of prosperity so that idiots like the Taliban and al Quaeda cannot take hold after we leave. If that is not the goal, then we are indeed there forever.

The real answer to the terrorism problem does not reside in sending our troops out to kill people; rather in the work that goes on making it possible for others around the world to have some prosperity and hope. That it involves troops for protection sometimes is understood, but that isn't the goal and I would expect any leader of this country to understand that. I sincerely doubt this one does, because I think he's using the military for his own political ends, not for the possible good that it is doing in Afghanistan.

You forget that "American-style patriotism", the "need to feel important to the world" is ALSO Canadian style patriotism! At least, it was...

Sure, the last 30 years or so have seen it dwindle down to almost nothing, but Harper is starting to look like he might take us back to the Lester B. Pearson days... the time when people around the world actually KNEW where Canada was and what we stood for, and respected what we had to offer to the world.

That Canada isn't dead, it is just in hibernation.

One question - if you're so behind us standing up to the 'threat of reprisals from any other countries or terrorist groups' - why are you hiding behind the handle 'anonymous'?

PS: you mispelled 'aspirations' - I'm thinking English wasn't one of your best subjects in school.

PPS: The NDP got 17.6% of the vote in the last election - evidently you didn't do too good in math, either

Mulroney ran a the largest deficits in Canadian history throughout his term. Please don't give him credit for slaying the deficit because he ran huge ones for 8 years.

As to Harper, I asked him to either support our troops and give them every possible assistance, or to bring them home. The worst thing we could possibliy do is leave them over there and not support them with morale and supplies.

I would expect any Prime Minister, from any Party, to support our tropps in the missions we choose for them. The issue isn't the size of the military; the issue is that the military abeys our orders. Having ordered them to fight and die in Afghanistan, it behooves us to support them wholeheartedly.

James,
I did not say that Mulroney killed the deficit. Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's wonderful that people take the time to comment here, but please take a minute to read what I have written first so I don't have to repeat what I wrote. What I did say was that the Liberal government continued "the social program cuts of the Mulroney Tories".

I've read your blog and realize that you are a Liberal toadie, so I will stray from the topic of the post because you have in your comment: the deficit was not a beast to be "slayed", it was a fiscal imbalance that was moved from the balance sheet of the federal government to those of the provinces. And now the provinces get to deal with that by sucking up almost all of the health care, education, and other costs that got "transferred" to make Paul Martin and Jean Chretien feel like heroes when they shaved in the morning.

As for the "missions we choose for them", we didn't. Our Liberal government opted to send them over without a vote in Parliament. If memory serves that was the way it happened both in 2001 when we joined the initial invasion and then in 2003 when Canada expanded its role and took over command of the multinational brigade.

If by "support them wholeheartedly" you mean shut up and don't discuss the mission, then no, it doth not behoove me so. I am not sure what it's like in Ontario, but out here on the coast we still have free speech and I intend to use it. Any time, any place and about anything I damn well want, especially if my tax dollars are supporting it.

If the morale of the military is hurt by my comments on one mission or other, perhaps it's a stupid mission. Perhaps stupid missions would not be pursued if we were able to discuss them in open forums.

I propose we do just this, let's see, what shall I call this type of system? Hmmm,

I know: Democracy!

PS > So you're buddy-buddy with ol' Stevie, or did you send him an email that got read by a flunkie? If you guys golf together or something, then tell him I said hi and that I want my wiffle bat back. He'll know what you're talking about.

Pete: in all of Canadian history, there's nobody I like better than Pearson. I hope you're right, that we'll hit those heights again some day - but if we don't, it's only our own insecurities that make it matter to us. Let's be respected occasionally rather than try too hard and make mistakes that could come back to haunt us.
James B.: I agree that we should support the troops. I think, however that the role we are playing now, as opposed to our 'original' role, has evolved - it needs to be reviewed, and either an exit strategy or a plan to supply what you indicated - better equipment, more Tim's cups, whatever - decided upon. They should not under any circiumstances be abandoned. In fact, I'm a little dismayed that we've heard relatively little about our troops over there until recently.
But, a photo op does not get them better body armour or weapons, it just turns them into scenery.

James B. - actually, Mulroney inherited the deficits from Trudeau. Granted, he did nothing to quell them for the first 6 years, but he did make some attempts in his last two. Granted, he did them by the methods Kevvy's described, but he did at least make a half-hearted attempt.

Pete, Flash: I agree, Pearson was one of our greater PMs. I also note that one of his greater accomplishments was running a successful government while in a minority position - Harper would do well to use him as a model, rather than Joe Clark, as he seems to be doing.

James - Sorry for that blast, I came out full guns and didn't need to get so personal. Please keep hanging around here. I'm not going to delete the comment because I think the points I made are valid, but forgive the tone.

Dan - Mulroney did inherit the deficit from Trudeau, but he and Michael Wilson applied a strict monetarist policy via the Bank of Canada and that resulted in extraordinary interest rates and the deficit ballooned under their watch despite the cuts and tax increases in the final years.

My point was that the debt did not vanish by anything that the Liberals did on their own. They simply kept the same policy as the Tories and saw the benefit when the economic tide turned. It has been argued in many places that the deficit would have disappeared had they not cut another job or another hospital bed. I'm not so sure I believe that, but I think they were heavier handed that they needed to be.

Kevvy - I'm not saying Mulroney should get any credit for cutting the deficit - you're right about the monetarist policy, I'd forgotten it - I'm saying he shouldn't shoulder all the blame. It probably wouldn't have been a completely bad policy, had the economy not taken a downturn and the fact that neither he nor Wilson could adapt to that changing climate does count against him.

Dan - we agree then that the deficit was a team effort? ;)

Exactly - it was a JOLTFO(Joint Liberal-Tory Fuck-Over)

JOLTFO!

Dan, I think you just might have created something...