Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (4472)	11/21/2004 1:15:03 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37183

'If we were to be compelled to take part in all the wars of Great Britain, I have no hesitation in saying that I agree with my hon. friend that, sharing the burden, we should also share the responsibility. Under that condition of things, which does not exist, we should have the right to say to Great Britain: If you want us to help you, call us to your councils; if you want us to take part in wars let us share not only the burdens but the responsibilities and duties as well.' - Sir Wilfred Laurier, prime minister, referring to possible Canadian participation in the Boer War, in the House of Commons, March 13 1900. "My hon. friend" was Henri Bourassa. "If you want us to help you, call us to your councils," became a catchphrase of the period. [typed in from Colombo's Quotations] Michael, agreed with every point you make here [and very well said, too], except to some degree with the 'NMD as sovereignty grab' - i think it's pretty clear that the US does have legitimate security concerns, and while those concerns have been played on and perverted by their current admin, a core of reality remains to them when you shovel away the bullshit ... we do occupy their northern border [who's the 'thee' in '... we stand on guard for ____'?], missiles coming from a number of possible sources will fly over us on the way ... which means they'll be trying to shoot them down over us, in any case ... Not that i can imagine Star Wars II working effectively, on the technical side of it ... however that is somewhat irrelevant to the political, when they're rolling ahead with blinders on ... i think maybe it's best to keep discussions open, 'call us to your councils'

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (4472)	11/21/2004 4:13:51 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37183

The Problem With A Strong Military Here Is : Someone will always want to use it, even if the people who pay for it don't agree.We can be blackmailed and subversively drawn into situations that are not in our own national interest. We would do well by increasing our spending though,and try to gain more influence in NATO,as has just taken place with the new chairman of NATO's military committee. ctv.ca No doubt Martin is promising more funding and trying to improve dialogue with the new far right Bush team. You know what they say..if ya can beat'em..join'em. >> we have the longest coastline in the world but are unable to effectively patrol it<< It's not as bad as it seems,but still not great.The thing being that any major attempt towards hitting us will not come by sea.Only a rogue attack would consider that.We have the benefit of location to our advantage,as does the US,but with greater influence. The NMD will have to run its coarse it seems.They have sunk too much in and made too many declarations to turn back now. Canada would do well by supporting it,but with the understanding that our contributions monetarily be limited, and our reliance on it for our safety be one of having an umbrella on a very windy - rainy day. >>And finally we need to treat our military with the respect they deserve and fund them properly.<< Interestingly enough,after 911 and our contributions in Afghanistan, the military did get more respect and support from J6P,even in Left Wing havens like Victoria,where the military is both despised and depended upon.A real weird situation really. But this Iraqi adventure has now tarnished the military again, even though we did not participate.Thus, there will be opposition to any huge increase in spending,not to mention the SUB fiasco.. >>First and foremost, Canadian sovereignty is my focus.<< As it should be..well said...but we have to contend with a US administration that appears to be on a mission from G-D himself. The Blue States understand our dilemma ,the Red ones never will anyway. PS : Enjoy your posts. E'M'

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (4472)	11/21/2004 4:17:22 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37183

The "Patriot" system Yes though it seems much downplayed now... My focus is mostly inward: I have no problem with the peace keeping role as long as it is not to the detriment of those inward looking things you mention.. First and foremost, Canadian sovereignty is my focus. Agree.

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (4472)	12/3/2004 6:11:52 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 37183

The only thing Canada can do to protect itself now is to learn Chinese as a second language. If we suck up to the Chinese now by learning their language and culture when they eventually take over they might not kill us. They also have a soft spot for us because of Norman Bethune. I would start studying immediately: chinapage.com anu.edu.au