- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Posted by Ian Edwards <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:32:45 -0800
I‘ll keep it short, which isn‘t my style, in the hopes of getting in the
last words:
1. To quote you know who "Methinks he doth protest too much"
2. To quote Bonar Law a Canadian born Brit PM" Which way are my people
going, as I must follow them, for I am their leader?" well, that‘s just
about a correct quote. - 30 -
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Hi Ian Dave
>
> Bear with me this may get complicated, as I receive only the digest version of
> the newsletter.
> I feel your points deserve a response. I hope the group will forgive me going a
> bit off-topic to respond.
>
> First Ian:
>
> You wrote:
>
> It‘s interesting that you are/were ashamed to admit that you are
> a Liberal.
>
> Where did I say I was ashamed of being a Liberal? I haven‘t contributed much to
> this forum, mostly because
> I generally have the good sense to keep my mouth shut on things others know
> better than me, but on this
> occasion I thought the resolutions would be of interest to the group, and that
> all should know my bias and role.
> In any case, I am not ashamed to be a Liberal. That doesn‘t mean I can or will
> defend 100 of the record of the
> current or previous Liberal government, nor does it mean that I won‘t criticize
> it in areas I feel need attention such as defence.
> On the other hand, it does mean that, in my personal opinion, they best
> represent the national interest of this country, and I feel
> that the last 7 years demonstrate that. For those of you who disagree,
> especially with respect to National Defence, I understand and
> respect your opinion. I don‘t really feel this is a forum for discussing
> politics outside of how it affects National Defence, so I hope we
> can keep strictly political debate off this net.
>
> Are you also a lawyer? In the West about the only Liberals
> are lawyers looking for party payoffs for waiving the flag in the
> wilderness.
>
> Well, I‘m not a lawyer, I‘m a chartered accountant. While I now live in
> Montreal, I grew up and went to school in Alberta, and I can tell you
> as a fact that there are quite a few Liberals there who are not lawyers, and
> that there really aren‘t a lot of
> "party payoffs". Any further debate on this should probably not be on this
> forum as this point has nothing to
> do with the military
>
> Does the Party paper actually spell defence as defense ie.
> the Amuricun way, or is that just your typo?
>
> Alas, yes, as I copied the text from the policy manual. Too bad you weren‘t at
> the convention, we could have corrected it there.
>
> Do you really believe that the paper is anything more than rhetoric?
>
> As a matter of fact, yes, I do. Party resolutions represent the will of the
> party. These particular resolutions were classed as
> "priority", which means they were guaranteed to be brought to the floor of the
> entire convention to be put into official party policy.
> Not every resolution is declared a priority, there are certain groups which have
> a limited number of resolutions they
> can declare to ensure the party convention votes on them. As I indicated in the
> first post, Resolution 19 on National Defence
> was considered so important that 5 bodies sponsered it as a priority, INCLUDING
> the national caucus all the MP‘s and Senators.
>
> Does that mean I think the government will now jump up and down to act on this?
> No, I don‘t. These resolutions are not binding on the
> government, as I stated in my earlier post. However, they do push the
> government, and if enough people push their Liberal MP‘s to act on it, they
> will. I have seen party resolution enacted at Conventions show up in the House
> of Commons as legislation months after a convention.
> So yes, I think the resolutions are more than rhetoric.
>
> Do you think ‘we‘ are foolish enough to believe that Diefenbaker and Mulroney
> didn‘t do just as bad a
> hatchet job on the Canadian ARMED Forces as the Liberals, so why apologize for a
> party that follows
> public opinion rather than leads it?
>
> Well, I have certainly seen posts, such as "why would anyone vote Liberal" on
> this forum. It seems that the Liberals get more
> than their fare share of blame for the current state of the armed forces, and I
> can‘t deny that the Liberals were responsible for unification.
> You won‘t get any arqument from me that NONE of the parties have particularly
> served our military well.
>
> Why are you a Liberal? Is is just for lack of a viable alternative? The
> last good Defence Minister was Brooke Claxton! He was a Liberal and
> wasn‘t known for listening to constituents or fellow party members.
>
> I have to admit that I don‘t know of Brooke Claxton. I always though Perrin
> Beatty did a pretty decent job. I am a Liberal because
> I beleive that the party best represents the interest of all Canadians. I am
> also a Liberal because I beleive that sometimes, it
> helps to be on the inside of the process to influence the debate. As a
> westerner, I beleive we have been hurt by not being able
> to voice our concerns as effectively in cabinet and in the party. I don‘t think
> the NEP would have happened if there were viable swing seats
> in Alberta. I have a number of concerns, including defence, which I believe I
> can be a positive influence on the party. The Liberal party has room
> for a wide range of opinions, and I happen to be most comfortable there.
>
> Now, I didn‘t want to go on politicking, but ya asked.
>
> Alas, we are a one-party democracy.
> Since I was born 1970, the federal government has changed hands 4 times, with
> the Liberals in power for 20 years,
> and the Tories 10. The leadership of the Liberals changed 3 times, the Tories
> 6. Twice, there were minority governments.
> There are currently 5 parties represented in parliament, leading to the current
> situation of a very divided opposition. However, you
> could easily make the arqument that there are in fact too many parties. It is
> not the fault of the Liberal Party that the Tories exploded into
> three parties Reform, Bloc, PC. However, that doesn‘t make it a one party
> democracy. We saw internal polls this weekend that showed the Liberals were
> only consided the best party for the region in Ontario. The government knows
> its support is soft, and that it is threatened by all the other parties
> in different areas of the country. So, I don‘t buy the one-party thing.
>
> Now Dave:
>
> Good day Mr.James Hanna,
>
> Gee, that sounds much better than "Cpl. Hanna, J."
>
> Thank you for keeping us abreast of positive Liberal happenings. It is
> rather refreshing to hear that there are in fact some positive areas to hear
> about in a sea of negative boondoggling and bleeding heart anti constructive
> antics. I think the resolutions go far in attempting to correct a situation
> that screams out for attention. One thing I found missing from the list of
> objectives for the CF was, the defence of Canada and preparation for war. As
> this is the bottom line for any nations defence requirement, perhaps an
> amendment or supplement would be in order.
>
> Well, you‘re right, its not spelled out there specifically. However, I suppose
> the question is,
> how do you convince the public that more spending is necessary, in the midst of
> a crisis in Health care,
> and promises of tax cuts. If we are to win the debate in the public mindand
> the government will then surely
> follow we have to "sell" the public on the need for a stronger military. While
> we may agree that preparation for
> war is important, it would be a tough sell to the public. The areas enumerated
> in the resolution convinced the
> convention to pass the resolution, and I hope will convince the public to
> support it.
>
> Additionally, I think that, from the military point of view, preparing for the
> items enumerated, and preparing for war, don‘t look all that
> different. Perhaps I have too much confidence in NDHQ and the CDS, but I feel
> they would use
>
> Our Boy Scout duties are
> secondary to our warrior status. Not meaning to take anything away from this
> worthwhile initiative, it is interesting to note that it only caught Liberal
> attention once it reached a state of crisis. So much suffering, loss of
> reputation in the eyes of the world and Canadian credibility had to hit the
> skids before Liberals became embarrassed enough to even attempt to react.
>
> I agree its a long time coming, and I wish a similar resolution passed earlier.
> It has been debated at previous conventions, but had never obtained a sponser to
> become a "priority". I think you can credit East Timor - our willingness to act
> was hampered by our lack of resources. Yes, the
> government did get a wake up call, but I guess its better late than never.
>
> I too, will be voting Canadian Alliance.
>
> Well, I respect that. I disagree with it, but I respect your choice. Any
> further debate is best held on another forum.
>
> Dave Willard
>
> Well thats all for now. As an aside, I am enjoying the stories about the old
> kit/uniforms as well. From the sound of the battle dress/bush dress
> threads, I‘m glad I only saw the current combats. Now, if I could only get
> issued the new cam stuff before I have to release....
>
> James Hanna
>
> Nemo me impune lacessit
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
> from any computer.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to [email protected] from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to [email protected] from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
I‘ll keep it short, which isn‘t my style, in the hopes of getting in the
last words:
1. To quote you know who "Methinks he doth protest too much"
2. To quote Bonar Law a Canadian born Brit PM" Which way are my people
going, as I must follow them, for I am their leader?" well, that‘s just
about a correct quote. - 30 -
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Hi Ian Dave
>
> Bear with me this may get complicated, as I receive only the digest version of
> the newsletter.
> I feel your points deserve a response. I hope the group will forgive me going a
> bit off-topic to respond.
>
> First Ian:
>
> You wrote:
>
> It‘s interesting that you are/were ashamed to admit that you are
> a Liberal.
>
> Where did I say I was ashamed of being a Liberal? I haven‘t contributed much to
> this forum, mostly because
> I generally have the good sense to keep my mouth shut on things others know
> better than me, but on this
> occasion I thought the resolutions would be of interest to the group, and that
> all should know my bias and role.
> In any case, I am not ashamed to be a Liberal. That doesn‘t mean I can or will
> defend 100 of the record of the
> current or previous Liberal government, nor does it mean that I won‘t criticize
> it in areas I feel need attention such as defence.
> On the other hand, it does mean that, in my personal opinion, they best
> represent the national interest of this country, and I feel
> that the last 7 years demonstrate that. For those of you who disagree,
> especially with respect to National Defence, I understand and
> respect your opinion. I don‘t really feel this is a forum for discussing
> politics outside of how it affects National Defence, so I hope we
> can keep strictly political debate off this net.
>
> Are you also a lawyer? In the West about the only Liberals
> are lawyers looking for party payoffs for waiving the flag in the
> wilderness.
>
> Well, I‘m not a lawyer, I‘m a chartered accountant. While I now live in
> Montreal, I grew up and went to school in Alberta, and I can tell you
> as a fact that there are quite a few Liberals there who are not lawyers, and
> that there really aren‘t a lot of
> "party payoffs". Any further debate on this should probably not be on this
> forum as this point has nothing to
> do with the military
>
> Does the Party paper actually spell defence as defense ie.
> the Amuricun way, or is that just your typo?
>
> Alas, yes, as I copied the text from the policy manual. Too bad you weren‘t at
> the convention, we could have corrected it there.
>
> Do you really believe that the paper is anything more than rhetoric?
>
> As a matter of fact, yes, I do. Party resolutions represent the will of the
> party. These particular resolutions were classed as
> "priority", which means they were guaranteed to be brought to the floor of the
> entire convention to be put into official party policy.
> Not every resolution is declared a priority, there are certain groups which have
> a limited number of resolutions they
> can declare to ensure the party convention votes on them. As I indicated in the
> first post, Resolution 19 on National Defence
> was considered so important that 5 bodies sponsered it as a priority, INCLUDING
> the national caucus all the MP‘s and Senators.
>
> Does that mean I think the government will now jump up and down to act on this?
> No, I don‘t. These resolutions are not binding on the
> government, as I stated in my earlier post. However, they do push the
> government, and if enough people push their Liberal MP‘s to act on it, they
> will. I have seen party resolution enacted at Conventions show up in the House
> of Commons as legislation months after a convention.
> So yes, I think the resolutions are more than rhetoric.
>
> Do you think ‘we‘ are foolish enough to believe that Diefenbaker and Mulroney
> didn‘t do just as bad a
> hatchet job on the Canadian ARMED Forces as the Liberals, so why apologize for a
> party that follows
> public opinion rather than leads it?
>
> Well, I have certainly seen posts, such as "why would anyone vote Liberal" on
> this forum. It seems that the Liberals get more
> than their fare share of blame for the current state of the armed forces, and I
> can‘t deny that the Liberals were responsible for unification.
> You won‘t get any arqument from me that NONE of the parties have particularly
> served our military well.
>
> Why are you a Liberal? Is is just for lack of a viable alternative? The
> last good Defence Minister was Brooke Claxton! He was a Liberal and
> wasn‘t known for listening to constituents or fellow party members.
>
> I have to admit that I don‘t know of Brooke Claxton. I always though Perrin
> Beatty did a pretty decent job. I am a Liberal because
> I beleive that the party best represents the interest of all Canadians. I am
> also a Liberal because I beleive that sometimes, it
> helps to be on the inside of the process to influence the debate. As a
> westerner, I beleive we have been hurt by not being able
> to voice our concerns as effectively in cabinet and in the party. I don‘t think
> the NEP would have happened if there were viable swing seats
> in Alberta. I have a number of concerns, including defence, which I believe I
> can be a positive influence on the party. The Liberal party has room
> for a wide range of opinions, and I happen to be most comfortable there.
>
> Now, I didn‘t want to go on politicking, but ya asked.
>
> Alas, we are a one-party democracy.
> Since I was born 1970, the federal government has changed hands 4 times, with
> the Liberals in power for 20 years,
> and the Tories 10. The leadership of the Liberals changed 3 times, the Tories
> 6. Twice, there were minority governments.
> There are currently 5 parties represented in parliament, leading to the current
> situation of a very divided opposition. However, you
> could easily make the arqument that there are in fact too many parties. It is
> not the fault of the Liberal Party that the Tories exploded into
> three parties Reform, Bloc, PC. However, that doesn‘t make it a one party
> democracy. We saw internal polls this weekend that showed the Liberals were
> only consided the best party for the region in Ontario. The government knows
> its support is soft, and that it is threatened by all the other parties
> in different areas of the country. So, I don‘t buy the one-party thing.
>
> Now Dave:
>
> Good day Mr.James Hanna,
>
> Gee, that sounds much better than "Cpl. Hanna, J."
>
> Thank you for keeping us abreast of positive Liberal happenings. It is
> rather refreshing to hear that there are in fact some positive areas to hear
> about in a sea of negative boondoggling and bleeding heart anti constructive
> antics. I think the resolutions go far in attempting to correct a situation
> that screams out for attention. One thing I found missing from the list of
> objectives for the CF was, the defence of Canada and preparation for war. As
> this is the bottom line for any nations defence requirement, perhaps an
> amendment or supplement would be in order.
>
> Well, you‘re right, its not spelled out there specifically. However, I suppose
> the question is,
> how do you convince the public that more spending is necessary, in the midst of
> a crisis in Health care,
> and promises of tax cuts. If we are to win the debate in the public mindand
> the government will then surely
> follow we have to "sell" the public on the need for a stronger military. While
> we may agree that preparation for
> war is important, it would be a tough sell to the public. The areas enumerated
> in the resolution convinced the
> convention to pass the resolution, and I hope will convince the public to
> support it.
>
> Additionally, I think that, from the military point of view, preparing for the
> items enumerated, and preparing for war, don‘t look all that
> different. Perhaps I have too much confidence in NDHQ and the CDS, but I feel
> they would use
>
> Our Boy Scout duties are
> secondary to our warrior status. Not meaning to take anything away from this
> worthwhile initiative, it is interesting to note that it only caught Liberal
> attention once it reached a state of crisis. So much suffering, loss of
> reputation in the eyes of the world and Canadian credibility had to hit the
> skids before Liberals became embarrassed enough to even attempt to react.
>
> I agree its a long time coming, and I wish a similar resolution passed earlier.
> It has been debated at previous conventions, but had never obtained a sponser to
> become a "priority". I think you can credit East Timor - our willingness to act
> was hampered by our lack of resources. Yes, the
> government did get a wake up call, but I guess its better late than never.
>
> I too, will be voting Canadian Alliance.
>
> Well, I respect that. I disagree with it, but I respect your choice. Any
> further debate is best held on another forum.
>
> Dave Willard
>
> Well thats all for now. As an aside, I am enjoying the stories about the old
> kit/uniforms as well. From the sound of the battle dress/bush dress
> threads, I‘m glad I only saw the current combats. Now, if I could only get
> issued the new cam stuff before I have to release....
>
> James Hanna
>
> Nemo me impune lacessit
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
> from any computer.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to [email protected] from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to [email protected] from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
