Prime Minister pays tribute to Canada’s fallen soldiers at l

Written By: Anonymous
Date: 2006-11-06 16:59:00
<a href="/article/155917227-prime-minister-pays-tribute-to-canadas-fallen-soldiers-at-launch-of-remembrance">Article Link</a>

<a href="http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1394">http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1394</a>

Quoting John McCrae’s famous poem, In Flanders Fields, [Harper] said “the brave Canadians who lie beneath the poppies in Flanders fields can rest in peace” 

because

they got their butts shot off in '17 at Vimy for nothing too, just like our 'boys' in Afghanistan today. Isn't it great that young Canadians are being killed overseas again? I'm sooooo stoked -- NOT!

War is for chumps!

Harper has no business using fallen Canadian soldiers sacrifices as speech fodder.

Neither does ANY political SOB who has never served.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Now wait a bit! Since when does Canada celebrate US holidays? 
 
Go to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day</a> and see that "Remembrance Day" is celebrated in Canada and many countries of the British Commonwealth - and that the USA celebrates "Veterans Day" but with another meaning. 
 
And I've never heard the term "Remembrance Week" - is this something like "holy week" for Roman Catholics? 
 
Sad that Canada's New Goverdment does not seem to know the difference, and that there is indeed a border between Canada and the USA. Shame on you, Mr. Harper. I guess you must have some over-active yankees working in the Prime Minister's Office.

Now waaaaiiiit a bit - since when does Canada celebrate US holidays? 
 
Look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day</a> and see the vast difference between "Remembrance Day" (in Canada and many other countries of the British Commonwealth) and "Veterans Day" in the United States. 
 
And I've never heard of the term "Remembrance Week" - is this something like "holy week"? 
 
Sad that the Prime Minister of "Canada's New Government" (for how much longer will that be on the web-site?) does not recognize the difference between these two. 
 
I guess he must have some pro-active yankees working in his office.

Sorry for posting twice.

This comes from the Australian Government's website:

"Remembrance Day is the day Australians remember those who have died in war.

In 1918 the armistice that ended World War I came into force, bringing to an end four years of hostilities that saw 61 919 Australians die at sea, in the air, and on foreign soil. Few Australian families were left untouched by the events of World War I - 'the war to end all wars' most had lost a father, son, daughter, brother, sister or friend.

At 11am on 11 November we pause to remember the sacrifice of those men and women who have died or suffered in wars and conflicts and all those who have served during the past 100 years."

What I'm trying to say is that in Canada, Australia and many other countries, we remember on Remembrance Day those (in and out of uniform) who died or suffered - including civilians on all sides of the conflicts. Veterans Day in the USA only celebrates US servicemen and somehow glorifies warmongering - and it does not care about civilians and those of other warring parties.

Maybe that is (in a nutshell) the difference between "us" and "them". And that is where in my opinion, Stephen Harper misses the boat, or is too blind to even see it.

Psalm 120:7 comes to mind: "I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war."

<blockquote>“Because of their sacrifices,” the Prime Minister said, “we are privileged to live in one of the most prosperous, civilized and safest countries in the world.”</blockquote> Too bad that story is not true. Harper is perpetuating the myth that wars are fought to preserve "prosperity, civilization, and security". It is interesting that Harper did not say that wars are fought to preserve the peace, which would have been another lie. The unfortunate fact is that throughout history no war was ever fought for a good cause, and in fact all wars have been fought for economic reasons alone. All the other reasons given are based on lies, designed to generate support for wars whose sole purpose is to steal something of value from someone else. End of story. It has been shown conclusively that Governments have gone so far as to manufacture religious hatred, fear of terrorism, fear of political ideology, false flag hit operations, and just about any excuse imaginable to generate the required level of support to kick off wars. Few leaders who declare war ever fight in them, or allow their children to fight in them. Harper is no exception to this rule.

Ok, in addition to 'bad analogies', you're looking for a 'bad overgeneralization's' tag too?

"The unfortunate fact is that throughout history no war was ever fought for a good cause, and in fact all wars have been fought for economic reasons alone."

The economic reasons for WWI and WWII were ____________________

"All the other reasons given are based on lies, designed to generate support for wars whose sole purpose is to steal something of value from someone else."

Hilter invading Poland did not happen. [ ] True [ ]False.

When Canada and the allies left Europe, we took with us $____________ in economic [ ]Gain [ ]Debt.

"Few leaders who declare war ever fight in them, or allow their children to fight in them. Harper is no exception to this rule."

So, Harper should arm 9 and 10 year olds? Cause that's how old his kids are. Ignoring of course, it was Cretien who delcared war . . .

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Are you arguing that Hitler had no economic motives in invading other countries?

Yer doin it again ain't cha?

---
Diogenes said:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."

To Quote Bugs Bunny noted for his catchphrase of "Eh, (carrot chewing sounds) ... what's up, doc?"

And then there is Thomas Pynchon,

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.”
Ya Ya Hitler invaded Poland and There was war debt
Ask to who this debt is owed, The USA has been in a state of bankruptcy since 1935 Now ask who owns the paper?
Of all people you should k now nothing is as cut and dried as “history” would have us believe. Are you a believer?

---
Diogenes said:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."

I had to turn the TV off after 2 minutes of him. He was going on about our "glorious" or "magnificient" war museum and I had just eaten breakfast and was about to lose it. The guy revolts me - period.

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

No, that we had no economic reason nor gain in stopping him.

Just as another non-sequitr to address, Are you saying we should arm children?

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

"Ok, in addition to 'bad analogies', you're looking for a 'bad overgeneralization's' tag too?" 
 
Judging by the responses so far, what tag do you think you're looking at? 
 
"The economic reasons for WWI and WWII were ____________________" 
 
 
Humm, now where do I begin? 
 
For starters, how much is stolen land worth, as in theft of entire countries? The Roman Empire excelled at the art of stealing entire nations, and so did the British Empire. Each empire became filty rich largely because they stole a lot of valuable land, which of course includes everything sitting on it, such as the natural resources and all those hard working people who dig it up for next to free. 
 
Then there's all that extra taxation. 
 
How elementray do I have to get before it sinks in that ALL wars are fought for profit? 
 
"Hilter invading Poland did not happen. [ ] True [ ]False." 
 
[X] True 
 
Here's one back at ya. 
 
Hitler created a false flag operation against Germany and blamed Poland for it just prior to the invasion. 
[ ]True [ ]False. 
 
"When Canada and the allies left Europe, we took with us $____________ in economic [ ]Gain [ ]Debt." 
 
Who makes the money from warfare is never the common people on either side of a war, it's only the guys and their profiteering buddies that start wars who make all the bucks. Those who are outside the inner circle may profit in some cases, but these are unintentional and usually inconsequential side effects. 
 
Win or lose the war, the general objective is that profiteers always win. In fact, often the objective is to not win or lose, but instead to drag it out for as long as possible, unless of course there's more profits to be made one way or the other. 
 
Often the beauty of war is that there can be no losses, because the whole design is to bilk the people into dying while piliaging the nation to pay all the expenses. 
 
As with any crime, there are some risks, and sometimes the perps do get caught and pay with their heads. 
 
We can look at Iraq and Afghanistan as a classic modern day example of how a few profiteers have used warefare as a means to pilage their own nations for profit. Given the election results in the USA, we'll see soon enough if the perps end up paying for it. 
 
If I may ask: 
 
Given the finiancial costs of war, billions in profits have gone to? ______________ Billions in losses have been paid by? ______________ 
 
"So, Harper should arm 9 and 10 year olds? Cause that's how old his kids are. Ignoring of course, it was Cretien who delcared war . . ." 
 
Seems to me you're trying to spread around something smelly. 
 
You say you were in the military, right? Then you know that none of the guys who had targets painted them had connections that went high up in the food chain. There may be one or two for show, and perhaps even one for real, but it's very rare. 
 
What I said holds firm and you know it. 
 
Both Chrétien and Harper have never served in a time of war. Chrétien's children are well past 18 but never served in the Canadian forces, although one is a train wreck that no military would willingly take on. As for Harper's kids, we can talk about this again in a few more years, and I'll place a $100 bet with you that none of Harper's kids will join the military. Do you want to call me on that prediction? 
 
This is what Chrétien did when he visited Afghanistan 
<a href="http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/pm_visit_afghan-en.asp">http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/pm_visit_afghan-en.asp</a> 
 
... and this is what Harper did 
<a href="http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1057">http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1057</a> 
 
Tough talking armchair warriors if you ask me, each of them.

On what evidence do you base that conclusion, Dr. C? How can you be so sure there was no economic advantage in opposing Hitler or any other invader who wants to take your resources for themselves?

I am not clear why you would even suggest arming children. I am not in favour of "arming" anyone because it is the availability of "arms" that increases the arrogance of the aggressor.