We Should Sit At Peace Table

That`s your own country that you`re talking about. Running a war economy since Vietnam, while people starve and kill each other in the ghettos, and roughly 50 million Americans with no health care. And for what? Why, only to fatten the wallets of the American ruling class, of course. And the fear card has been played quite often in the USA! Axis of evil, weapons of mass destruction, them TERRORIST KILLERS! What will be the excuse for weaponization of space? The Martians are invading?

---
Dave Ruston

I assume you, as an evident member of the left, favored the enslavement of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union and believed it had no further territorial ambitions. And that you were grieved when the Berlin Wall fell and shortly thereafter the Evil Empire itself. Also that you don't believe there are TERRORIST KILLERS! supported by failed states and barbaric dictatorships soaked in blood. Further, that no evidence -- including videos of people begging for their lives before decapitation -- has the power to move you. Fine. It's the sort of solipsistic thinking found in a second rate country that has never had to spend more than chump change defending itself from outside threats because Big Daddy down south took care of that problem. As for the 50 million people without health care, um, they do, in fact. They go to the emergency rooms for treatment. The wait is long, but not materially greater than in your national health system. I doubt very much if you know about starvation in the ghettoes. Obesity is what we're worried about down here. Expand the range and sources of your reading and you'll be surprised what you learn.

Wow JJ actually fires off an organized and coherent arguement. Way to go.

I'd differ about us being a bunch of military wimps. We hopped aboard for WWII and we did a pretty good job at Normandy, Juno etc. The Dutch and the French love Canada for what we did. Furthermore, plenty of Canadians are choked about the state of our military. Our current Prime Minister (I'll let you try to figure his name out) gutted the military when he was finance minister. Canada is not second rate JJ. It's a great country to live in, which you likely would not understand if you live in the deep south or wherever.

Appearantly <a href="http://www.fallujahinpictures.com">www.fallujahinpictures.com</a> moved the Washington Post, Jerry. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35955-2004Dec4?language=printer">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35955-2004Dec4?language=printer</a>

'Peaceniks' should immolate themselves if they feel so guilty for living in a decent country like Canada - leave the rest of us out of your attempts at self-destruction.

If 'Peaceniks' really hate our own society to the extent that they would prefer that we be vulnerable to nuclear missile attacks - they should try living somewhere else for a while if they don't want to immolate themselves.

There is the socialist paradise of North Korea for example - the grass is greener over there(a good thing because that's what you would be eating), Cuba is another socialist paradise(don't bother bringing your computer though, or a pencil - they have a tendency to jail writers).

The only 'Peace Table' that makes a difference is the peace through strength table - the rest is just bleating before bludgeoning.

Never meant to say Canada wasn't a great place to live, the weather aside. Why wouldn't it be? All the money you would have to spend on military defense if not for the US has been plowed into cumbersome, inefficient bureaucratic-ridden services that suppress vigor and creativity but soften life for the slothful. Back when Canadians had guts, they were valiant soldiers who performed admirably. But that is more than half a century ago now, and that was your dads and granddads. What have you done lately to pull your share of the load, and I don't count carping from the cheap seats. That makes you feel good about yourselves -- We're such decent people, we Canadians -- in the absence of real accomplishment, but it doesn't get the trash taken out.

The nice CARE lady was shot in the head. The Dutch filmmaker was stabbed in the chest.

If you're trying to make some sort of point here, at least get the facts right so you don't have the appearance of spouting off the neocon propaganda line.

---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

but soften life for the slothful. Strange. I wonder why our unemployment rate is lower than yours, if we're so lazy . . . Back when Canadians had guts, they were valiant soldiers who performed admirably. But that is more than half a century ago now, and that was your dads and granddads. What have you done lately to pull your share of the load, Equally strange. I see a Bronze Star on my chest, presented to me by the US Ambassador, not 5 years ago. Do you have a Bronze Star Jerry Jay? Have you been pulling your share of the load? Or do you just flap your virtual lips on the intarweb about it? All Canadian soldiers killed in combat in the last 50 years have been in the last 3 years. Half were killed by . . . Americans. How's that football player turned Ranger? Oh, yea, American friendly fire again. Nice shooting! --- "If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

Casualties from friendly fire, as it is called, are a fact of life in war. Surely, as a former soldier you must know that.

I know that as a soldier, when you are told to hold fire and clear the area, you do so. 1 American pilot did not, and 4 of my friends died.

I know that when you are told to not kill civillians, you do so. More than once I took prisoners because they surrendered according to the Geneva Convention, when I would rather have stabbed them in the throat just to watch the life drain from their eyes. In not targeting civillians, you must be sure of your target, therefore friendly fire is rare. I can't remember an incident of Canadian troops accidentaly killing allies. I do remember many recent incidents of American troops killing British, Canadian and American troops. All in friendly fire incidents.

Strange how it always seems to be Americans saying 'friendly fire happens' and then it's only American troops killing friendlies.

---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

Um, Jerry, I guarantee I know more about your country than you know about mine. And one thing I do know is that people in the USA lying on hospital gurneys suffering a heart attack don`t get treatment until the doctors figure out that they`re going to get paid. But some rich guy who needs stitches goes to the front of the line. Very nice! And remember, back in the 50`s the US did not want Canada to build up it`s own defenses. We scared you guys off with the Avro-Arrow. Yep. You wanted Canada to fall under America`s wing. So we did, but fo course, ended up getting backstabbed for it. You know damn well that America doesn`t want to see Canada be self sufficient, which we all know it can be better than any other country! And no, I did not agree with Soviet imperialism, just like I don`t agree with American imperialism. And i`m not a full blown communist. I lean heavily on the socialist side, sure. It`s the only way to eliminate the excuses for people claiming not to be able to be self-suffucuent. Today`s rampant, unchecked capitalism allows the few to step on the individualism of the majority. And i`ve seen your slums, and am quite glad that Canadian cities have nothing to match!

---
Dave Ruston

So you think it was not accidental, but deliberate. For sport or a form of hazing?

To put it charitably, you're wrong. Law requires that people be treated regardless of their ability to pay. That vision of the heart attack patient dying as his financials are analyzed is a cracking good story, suitable for the old Pravada. Continue to tell your friends.

Americans have repeatedly shown the rest of us that what is law is not necessarily what is true.

---
Canada for Canadians

Thanks Milton but I did receive another reply from our conservative mp and here is what he had to say... <blockquote>US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM The US Missile Defence Program is a topic of great debate in our riding and indeed the entire country. On October 2, 2004, a rally was held in front of my office by people opposed to the program. I was unable to attend the rally due to commitments in Ottawa, but I did provide the organizers with the following letter which was read at the rally on my behalf. Philosophically, I support the concept of protecting our country and its citizens from attacks of any kind. I'm sure that many people, even those with generally pacifist views, would much prefer the concept of protection over pre-emptive action to avert the possibility of attacks. In reality, the question of support of defence policy is in the details. For the record, I have never once stated that I openly support the US missile defence initiative. What I have said is that I support sitting down with the Americans to find out exactly what the program entails, what part Canada would be expected to play, what impact it would have on Canada, and whether or not Canada would have any decision-making role in the design and implementation of the program. Interestingly, a recently published article in a Castlegar newspaper by organizers opposed to the missile defence program raised many of these same points. In the article they stated, "The USMD system needs to be discussed in terms of its viability - does it/will it work? What does it cost? Will it make us safer? Will it start a global arms race? Is its true purpose defensive or offensive? Will Canada really have any say in its operation whether we join or not?" These and other questions asked are valid. So how do we get these answers? Do we sit down at the table with the Americans and ask these and other questions, or do we sit back and hope the answers will simply come to us? Another question we need to ask ourselves is what will happen if we not only do not participate in the program but also do not participate in any talks about the program? Will it stop anything from happening? Are we not better to at least be seeking answers to the questions posed by the authors of the news article and trying to influence any negative aspects of the program? If we are to ultimately oppose the program, we should do so on sound fact, after having taken any measures possible to deal with unacceptable aspects of the program. Even if we had little desire to ultimately support the program, we should at least make sure we clearly understand it and exert what influence we can to minimize any negative impact on Canada. I have found situations in Parliament where we are presented with a government Bill that we do not support. In the process of debate, we may try to amend parts of the Bill but still vote against it even if our amendments are accepted. One might reasonably ask why we would try to amend it if we still intended to vote against it. The reason is that in a majority government of the past, any Bill the government wished to pass would pass without the support of an opposition party. Knowing this, we simply tried to improve it by modifying some of the negatives so that if it came into effect despite our best efforts, at least we would have tried to reduce some of that Bill's negative impact. In dealing with a US program that will proceed with or without us, should we not try to get the answers to those previous questions and exert whatever influence we have to protect Canada's interests. The federal NDP have advocated that we should not participate in any form with either the program or talks about it with the US. An ostrich sticks its head in the sand thinking that if it can't see its enemies, they can't see them. Obviously this action doesn't solve anything. Neither does the NDP's approach to this controversial program. They may wish to sit on the sidelines and hope it goes away. I would rather we were at the table learning and influencing where possible then informing Canadians of the real results of our talks and arriving at a final decision through national consultation. That's the difference between ducking issues or dealing with them head on. Jim Gouk, MP British Columbia Southern Interior</blockquote>--- Canada for Canadians