The Galloping Beaver
This.
Is.
Bullshit.
Wake up, Canada and get rid of this crowd before they do to Canada what bush and his minions did to the US . . . .
Why doesn't the jerk just move to the U.S. He is obviously so much more comfortable with their level of idiotic "foreign policy". Come to think of it, he seems to loves just about everything Republican, the more extreme the better.
And what enemy are we supposed to be warding off by this vast tax squandering?
The only country that is any real threat to Canada is Harpers idol the USA, so it can't be that. So where is the enemy? I have a better solution. Turn Canada into a northern version of Costa Rica. Get rid of the military period. Instead have decent coast guard/search and rescue, and a militia to guard our norther frontier. Forget all the high tech crap which is only a military industrial complex boondoggle anyway.
And what is so wrong with chattering from the sidelines? It's why I have a blog.
Anyone else notice how Bushian the photo-op was? He was standing in front of dozens of troops, using them as props to support his flabby manhood. He was introduced by a naval lieutenant who praised him and his government, saying something like "he is the man who is fighting to make us strong" or some such bull, which had obviously been written for her by the PMO. It was a very unseemly politicization of the military.
Where did he say we wont critically assess our own situation and act based on our own decisions. This is quite the leap you have here. I think the point you missed was that by having the equipment, Canada has the option of playing or remaining on the sidelines. When were choices a bad thing?
It seems an act of political suicide to tie yourself to anything Bush. Hopefully, Harper finds this out quickly and painfully (and overwhelmingly)
ps. counterpoint: your argument that choices aren't a bad thing ignores many other important Canadian choices that Harper's unilateral decision will overturn: Canada's choice to be a peacekeeper not an aggressor nation; our belief that change shouldn't come from the barrel of a gun but rather through discussion and compromise; our insistence on being a sovereign nation not just America-lite...
And many studies show that once big guns and bombs and planes... are bought, there is created a powerful urge to use those big, impressive, expensive toys. So the choice (to use the big guns we have paid for or not use them) actually is more of an illusion of choice since the decision will be skewed to using them.
counterpoint:
See roger's answer.
Also:
The bolded portions of the speech indicate that the motivation for producing a strenghthened armed forces is based in an old notion of equating military force to power, with the goal of acquiring power at its root. Any question of whether it is wise to deploy soldiers or build a larger expeditionary armed forces becomes a secondary consideration.
Nationalist politicians who use the armed forces as a backdrop while making pronouncements about the glory of sending to the military overseas should scare the fuck out of you.
"Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player. You're the one chattering on the sideline that everyone smiles at, but no one listens to."
I find it absolutely disgusting that these pathetic excuses for men find it necessary AND POSSIBLE to compensate, at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer and life forms globally, for the fact that they had no qualities deserving of respect in Junior High School.
They are a shameful stain on the once proud name of Canada and as shameful are those are themselves so greedy, insecure and frankly of sub-normal intelligence to enable these low forms of life walking upright to be in a position to ruin Canada as we once knew it.
Those team captains that picked Harper last for their side, you carry some of the blame, though I know you never thought it would come to this!
Second that, kootcoot. I call them "two-legged vermin", myself. At best, worthless; at worst, dangerous until quarantined.
@Boris: "...should scare the fuck out of you." -- I get what you mean by this but, speaking only for myself, what once might have been "fear and loathing" is now quite definitely "loathing and anger".
Nothing in the long litany of vile acts Harper and his government have perpetrated, and continue to perpetrate, evokes an "Oh my God" and chill down the spine anymore (and to be honest, I can't recall if it ever did) -- no, it's always either a "You scumsuckers!" or a "You incompetent wankers... where did you ever get the idea you were fit to run a latrine, let alone a country?"
They elicit strong emotional responses, I'll give them that.
Roger's right on . . . .
""If a country wants to be taken seriously in the world, it must have the capacity to act. It's that simple," Harper said Monday at the Halifax Armoury, joined by Defence Minister Peter MacKay. "Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player. You're the one chattering on the sideline that everyone smiles at, but no one listens to.""
Now, picture that being said by John Baird about the environment. Is Canada a country that really wants to be taken seriously in the world? Do we have the capacity to act against climate change and pollution?
I didn't start to worry until Harper put up that huge statue of President Polk in front of Parliament and talked about border incursions from the south. And the giant government-sponsored "Remember the Fenians!" rally. And the references to Washington and Oregon as Greater BC ("If James Cook saw it, it's ours!"). And the speech claiming that since of half of Maine speaks French, it's time for a Maple Syrup Anschluss. And the commando raid to rescue Neil Young.
Then, when Harper offered us gas at a dollar a gallon, I knew it was all over. The Saudis wanted four before they'd offer to take away our sovereignty.
Commenting by HaloScan
