- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Posted by Ian Edwards <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:48:49 -0800
Time now for Ian‘s Patented/Copyright Semi Annual Speech:
The only time we ever had a peacetime army of any relative size was
during the tenure of Brook Claxton glad for the opportunity to bring
him back from the grave and into the debate again. The only reason the
government of the time Liberal, alas built up our army WAS to counter
the threat of the AMERICANS!! For public consumption, the purpose of the
buildup was to do our share to counter the threat of Joe Stalin, making
threatening guestures in Asia Korea, IndoChina, Malaya, etc and
towards Western Europe.
But not really. Canada joined NATO to balance the unequal military
partnership we had with the Americans and for minor trade reasons. The
reason for our buildup had absolutely nothing to do with the perceived
Red Menace. No more so than our Government was really frightened about
the possibility of Japanese invasion a few years prior.
There was no real threat of Red invasion to Canadian soil, but the
domino theory "sooner or later... so stop em now" could keep many
doubters from gaining credibility besides, most of the doubters were
cripto commies anyway. Then The Bomb changed all that.
Now read that again, kids. I didn‘t say that our Army, large as it was
in the mid 50s was there to guard against the threat of American
invasion by force of arms. It was to provide a diplomatic balance,
rather than to have us, the mouse, remain in bed with the elephant to
paraphrase OCdt P.E. Trudeau, late COTC 1942. Instead of an alliance
with one large partner we opted for an alliance with 14 or so,
depending on the year of varying military sizes.
So Dad, what the **** ‘s all this old history bs got to do with today?
Well, it shows that politics has got very little to do with what the
public wants the public wants what it‘s told to want. And NO ONE of any
impact is telling the public what it should want as we perceive it.
Time now for about three paramilitary lurker groups to jump in and
defend themselves this time round I won‘t mention names. Our CF, out
of sight, out of mind. Can you really blame the Liberals, bad as they
are? Or Myron Balognia, or Dief the Chief in their day?
Leave our current poor little Defence Minister alone and go after
Axworthy. Military needs are driven by his foreign policy.
Climbing down from my soapbox, I remain,
Your ob. svt.
Ian Edwards, Esq.
dave newcombe wrote:
>
> I don‘t think we will ever get a Government that values our Armed Forces.
> We get the government that we deserve, until the "People of Canada" decide
> that Defence is an issue worth paying for, we will be stuck with the people
> on the present political scene. If we one day get a Government that
> actually has more than a token amount of former Service people in it, then
> maybe we can find funding. Where is Lewis Mackensie when you need him.sp?
> The citizens of Canada don‘t believe there are any threats to our nation.
> We will just ignore the fact that our largest neighbour is running out of
> water. Other nations are running out of space for their citizens. I think
> last summer‘s "invasion" was just a test of our capabilities to detect and
> handle illegal immigration.
> Always cynical
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Gilmour"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 4:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Liberal Resolutions
>
> > "Brooke Claxton", how long ago was that ?
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Edwards
> > To: [email protected]
> > Date: Monday, March 20, 2000 9:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: Liberal Resolutions
> >
> >
> > >It‘s interesting that you are/were ashamed to admit that you are
> > >a Liberal. 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. Does the Party paper actually spell defence as defense ie.
> > >the Amuricun way, or is that just your typo? Do you really believe that
> > >the paper is anything 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?
> > >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.
> > >Alas, we are a one-party democracy.
> > >
> > >[email protected] wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hello all,
> > >>
> > >> Well, I might as well come out of the closet and admit that, in
> addition
> > to
> > >> being in the reservers,
> > >> I am member of the Liberal Party, and I attended the Bienniel
> Convention
> > this
> > >> weekend. I would like
> > >> to bring this groups attention to two resolutions passed this past
> > weekend:
> > >>
> > >> 8.Remembrance Day
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS the sacrifices of our soldiers have pre s e r v e d
> > >> the rights and freedoms of all Canadians
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS Canadians recognize the sacrifice of our war
> > >> veterans as an unalienable part of our shared heritage
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS the preservation of Canadian heritage
> > >> is seen as a national concern
> > >>
> > >> BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada
> > >> recommend that the federal government repeal Sec.
> > >> 3 of the Holidays Act, and in its place pass new leg-islation
> > >> that enshrines the 11th day of November as
> > >> a day of solemn remembrance and requires that on
> > >> that day, commercial businesses, with the exception
> > >> of those services deemed absolutely necessary, in all
> > >> provinces and territories remain closed in respect for
> > >> those who lost their lives defending our nation.
> > >>
> > >> Sponser:
> > >> Young Liberals of Canada
> > >>
> > >> 19.Canadian Armed Forces
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS the Canadian Armed Forces are increasingly
> > >> being called upon to participate in peacekeeping
> > >> efforts due to regional conflicts while continuing
> > >> their primary responsibilities in Canada
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS Canadian defence expenditures have
> > >> fallen to 1.1 of GDP in 1999-2000 while the NATO
> > >> average is 2. 1
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS this reduction has led to insufficient
> > >> personnel strengths
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS the Forces continue to experience problems
> > >> with respect to quality of life issues, troop
> > >> fatigue based on increasing deployments, inadequate
> > >> levels and quality of essential equipment and the
> > >> loss of key capabilities
> > >>
> > >> BE IT RESOLVE that the Liberal Party of Canada urg e
> > >> the government of Canada to embark on a five year
> > >> plan to increase significantly the defense budget and
> > >> re f o rm national defense policies in order that Canadian
> > >> A rmed Forces personnel are provided with eff i c i e n t
> > >> o rganization, proper living facilities and terms and conditions
> > >> of service, and with the quality and quantity of
> > >> equipment necessary to permit the Canadian Arm e d
> > >> F o rces to perf o rm effectively the following ro l e s :
> > >> 1 maintaining surveillance of Canada?s territory
> > >> 2 p roviding emergency support to civilian authorities
> > >> 3 providing search and rescue services in Canada
> > >> 4 fulfilling peacekeeping and humanitarian opera-tions
> > >> in support of international agencies
> > >> 5 supporting NATO or other allied sponsored
> > >> military activities.
> > >>
> > >> Sponsers:
> > >> Nova Scotia Liberal Party
> > >> Liberal Party of Canada British Columbia
> > >> Liberal Party of Canada Ontario
> > >> National Liberal Caucus
> > >> New Brunswick Liberal Association
> > >>
> > >> These resolutions both passed with no debate meaning they were not
> > >> controversial and with
> > >> very little opposition. While I am aware that the party is not popular
> > among
> > >> these circles, I would
> > >> suggest that the rank and file of the party has demonstrated their
> > support of
> > >> the CF with the two resolutions above.
> > >>
> > >> These resolutions are not binding on the government however, the
> > government
> > >> can‘t hide from them either.
> > >> Its easy for them to dismiss Reform attacks, but it‘s pretty hard for
> > them to
> > >> arque against a position taken
> > >> by their own party. I would suggest to all those inclined that the
> > resolutions
> > >> provide a powerful tool in securing
> > >> government support for the CF. In a sense, your local MP if he/she is
> > Liberal
> > >> is painted in a corner on the issue now.
> > >> If you do have a Liberal MP, call them up, tell them you support the
> > positions
> > >> taken by the party this weekend, and ask
> > >> them that they personally support the above resolutions in Caucus. Its
> > >> important now to pressure the government to follow up
> > >> on the commitment expressed above. I‘ve seen it work before with this
> > >> government, it can work again
> > >>
> > >> Take care,
> > >>
> > >> Jim
> > >>
> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> 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.
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
Time now for Ian‘s Patented/Copyright Semi Annual Speech:
The only time we ever had a peacetime army of any relative size was
during the tenure of Brook Claxton glad for the opportunity to bring
him back from the grave and into the debate again. The only reason the
government of the time Liberal, alas built up our army WAS to counter
the threat of the AMERICANS!! For public consumption, the purpose of the
buildup was to do our share to counter the threat of Joe Stalin, making
threatening guestures in Asia Korea, IndoChina, Malaya, etc and
towards Western Europe.
But not really. Canada joined NATO to balance the unequal military
partnership we had with the Americans and for minor trade reasons. The
reason for our buildup had absolutely nothing to do with the perceived
Red Menace. No more so than our Government was really frightened about
the possibility of Japanese invasion a few years prior.
There was no real threat of Red invasion to Canadian soil, but the
domino theory "sooner or later... so stop em now" could keep many
doubters from gaining credibility besides, most of the doubters were
cripto commies anyway. Then The Bomb changed all that.
Now read that again, kids. I didn‘t say that our Army, large as it was
in the mid 50s was there to guard against the threat of American
invasion by force of arms. It was to provide a diplomatic balance,
rather than to have us, the mouse, remain in bed with the elephant to
paraphrase OCdt P.E. Trudeau, late COTC 1942. Instead of an alliance
with one large partner we opted for an alliance with 14 or so,
depending on the year of varying military sizes.
So Dad, what the **** ‘s all this old history bs got to do with today?
Well, it shows that politics has got very little to do with what the
public wants the public wants what it‘s told to want. And NO ONE of any
impact is telling the public what it should want as we perceive it.
Time now for about three paramilitary lurker groups to jump in and
defend themselves this time round I won‘t mention names. Our CF, out
of sight, out of mind. Can you really blame the Liberals, bad as they
are? Or Myron Balognia, or Dief the Chief in their day?
Leave our current poor little Defence Minister alone and go after
Axworthy. Military needs are driven by his foreign policy.
Climbing down from my soapbox, I remain,
Your ob. svt.
Ian Edwards, Esq.
dave newcombe wrote:
>
> I don‘t think we will ever get a Government that values our Armed Forces.
> We get the government that we deserve, until the "People of Canada" decide
> that Defence is an issue worth paying for, we will be stuck with the people
> on the present political scene. If we one day get a Government that
> actually has more than a token amount of former Service people in it, then
> maybe we can find funding. Where is Lewis Mackensie when you need him.sp?
> The citizens of Canada don‘t believe there are any threats to our nation.
> We will just ignore the fact that our largest neighbour is running out of
> water. Other nations are running out of space for their citizens. I think
> last summer‘s "invasion" was just a test of our capabilities to detect and
> handle illegal immigration.
> Always cynical
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Gilmour"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 4:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Liberal Resolutions
>
> > "Brooke Claxton", how long ago was that ?
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Edwards
> > To: [email protected]
> > Date: Monday, March 20, 2000 9:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: Liberal Resolutions
> >
> >
> > >It‘s interesting that you are/were ashamed to admit that you are
> > >a Liberal. 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. Does the Party paper actually spell defence as defense ie.
> > >the Amuricun way, or is that just your typo? Do you really believe that
> > >the paper is anything 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?
> > >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.
> > >Alas, we are a one-party democracy.
> > >
> > >[email protected] wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hello all,
> > >>
> > >> Well, I might as well come out of the closet and admit that, in
> addition
> > to
> > >> being in the reservers,
> > >> I am member of the Liberal Party, and I attended the Bienniel
> Convention
> > this
> > >> weekend. I would like
> > >> to bring this groups attention to two resolutions passed this past
> > weekend:
> > >>
> > >> 8.Remembrance Day
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS the sacrifices of our soldiers have pre s e r v e d
> > >> the rights and freedoms of all Canadians
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS Canadians recognize the sacrifice of our war
> > >> veterans as an unalienable part of our shared heritage
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS the preservation of Canadian heritage
> > >> is seen as a national concern
> > >>
> > >> BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada
> > >> recommend that the federal government repeal Sec.
> > >> 3 of the Holidays Act, and in its place pass new leg-islation
> > >> that enshrines the 11th day of November as
> > >> a day of solemn remembrance and requires that on
> > >> that day, commercial businesses, with the exception
> > >> of those services deemed absolutely necessary, in all
> > >> provinces and territories remain closed in respect for
> > >> those who lost their lives defending our nation.
> > >>
> > >> Sponser:
> > >> Young Liberals of Canada
> > >>
> > >> 19.Canadian Armed Forces
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS the Canadian Armed Forces are increasingly
> > >> being called upon to participate in peacekeeping
> > >> efforts due to regional conflicts while continuing
> > >> their primary responsibilities in Canada
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS Canadian defence expenditures have
> > >> fallen to 1.1 of GDP in 1999-2000 while the NATO
> > >> average is 2. 1
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS this reduction has led to insufficient
> > >> personnel strengths
> > >>
> > >> WHEREAS the Forces continue to experience problems
> > >> with respect to quality of life issues, troop
> > >> fatigue based on increasing deployments, inadequate
> > >> levels and quality of essential equipment and the
> > >> loss of key capabilities
> > >>
> > >> BE IT RESOLVE that the Liberal Party of Canada urg e
> > >> the government of Canada to embark on a five year
> > >> plan to increase significantly the defense budget and
> > >> re f o rm national defense policies in order that Canadian
> > >> A rmed Forces personnel are provided with eff i c i e n t
> > >> o rganization, proper living facilities and terms and conditions
> > >> of service, and with the quality and quantity of
> > >> equipment necessary to permit the Canadian Arm e d
> > >> F o rces to perf o rm effectively the following ro l e s :
> > >> 1 maintaining surveillance of Canada?s territory
> > >> 2 p roviding emergency support to civilian authorities
> > >> 3 providing search and rescue services in Canada
> > >> 4 fulfilling peacekeeping and humanitarian opera-tions
> > >> in support of international agencies
> > >> 5 supporting NATO or other allied sponsored
> > >> military activities.
> > >>
> > >> Sponsers:
> > >> Nova Scotia Liberal Party
> > >> Liberal Party of Canada British Columbia
> > >> Liberal Party of Canada Ontario
> > >> National Liberal Caucus
> > >> New Brunswick Liberal Association
> > >>
> > >> These resolutions both passed with no debate meaning they were not
> > >> controversial and with
> > >> very little opposition. While I am aware that the party is not popular
> > among
> > >> these circles, I would
> > >> suggest that the rank and file of the party has demonstrated their
> > support of
> > >> the CF with the two resolutions above.
> > >>
> > >> These resolutions are not binding on the government however, the
> > government
> > >> can‘t hide from them either.
> > >> Its easy for them to dismiss Reform attacks, but it‘s pretty hard for
> > them to
> > >> arque against a position taken
> > >> by their own party. I would suggest to all those inclined that the
> > resolutions
> > >> provide a powerful tool in securing
> > >> government support for the CF. In a sense, your local MP if he/she is
> > Liberal
> > >> is painted in a corner on the issue now.
> > >> If you do have a Liberal MP, call them up, tell them you support the
> > positions
> > >> taken by the party this weekend, and ask
> > >> them that they personally support the above resolutions in Caucus. Its
> > >> important now to pressure the government to follow up
> > >> on the commitment expressed above. I‘ve seen it work before with this
> > >> government, it can work again
> > >>
> > >> Take care,
> > >>
> > >> Jim
> > >>
> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> 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.
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
