hello, im a new member here, although iv'e been reading opinions and links off this website for about 2 years.
i have some questions in light of recent events following the election of our new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. incase some of you are not aware,
the previouse Prime Minister (Paul Martin) was elected in 2004, a very short stay for a Liberal that only faced one scandal and beat it as far as
evidence is concerned.
but regardless of evidence in the scandal, a well publicized smear campain against Martin and a 'snap election' decided that although Paul Martin
was not directly accountable, the Liberal party must still be removed so that
the rampid corruption could come to a stop.
im barely 26 years old and im proud to say that this was the first election night in my life that i didn't have a thing on my mind other that who was
going ot win the election. I, like many canadians my age have seem to have adopted the election principle of "lessor of the TWO evils", which
suggests that we expect only two rivals for office, and i dont think many of us care or uderstand why. but a good example of "why" that i have
learned is,although more people in this country voted Liberal (cities big and small) we were still told to accept a new Conservative Prime Minister.
Im not going to suggest an election fraud, (obviously the number of"ridings" decide the outcome) but the most ridings to be counted are in the rural
areas with smaller communities, with no cable television or high speed internet, meaning unless you have satilite you get two channels of information
to base your opinions on, and if you do happen to find some new contradicting informaion, the people you know are limited, so the news does not travel
as far as apposed to hearing something new in a large office environment. whatever. regardless if MOST of us wanted him or not we will now address
him as "Right Hounorable Stephen Harper"
so who is Stephen Harper?
the Candadian liberals suggest that he is a stooge for the current American administration, and from what iv'e been reading on this site as well as
many others, that can't be good.
shortly after the election, i though i would voice some concerns of mine to our new conservative government in an email that went as fallows:
" first of all congratulations on your parties victory. although i did not
vote conservative it does dissapoint me to see another minority government, i would be more intersested in what a party would do without the oposition
getting in the way. Anyway my question is, what is canada's role in petrodollar recycling currently controled by the US dollar, and what effects
should we be looking for if Iran does in fact start selling oil in Euro's? Obviously the US would acuse them of consorting with terrorists and wage
war on Iran, but what if the US in not successfull, and they no longer have other nations oil profits to extend credit to it's own economy? What
will the canadian government do to secure our own economy in the face of a collapse in the american economy? will we end up in another revolution of
the 'business cycle' or will we find a way to maintain our grouth and confindence in order to continue as a prospering nation. I have no doubt the
the USA will fall, after all every empire thus far has fallen, i see no reason why todays empire will not as well, but is canada at risk? "
so i layed it out to them how what i was thinking, and initially expected it to be shrugged off as babble, after all i didn't exactly hear about this
stuff of CNN. but lo and behold i recieved a reply.
On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to thank you for your e-mail, in which you raised an issue that falls within the
portfolio of the Honourable James Flaherty, Minister of Finance.
Please be assured that the statements you made have been carefully reviewed. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to the Minister of
Finance so that, he too, may be made aware of your comments. I am certain that he will wish to give your views every consideration. "
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister's Office
Agent de correspondance de la haute direction
pour le Cabinet du Premier ministre
i was shocked... never recieved a letter from the office of the Prime Minister before, but i was bashfullwhen i sent it to some relatives titled
"generic resposes" believing there was no way that they could have read this and there was no way that this was in anyones "portfolio."
so a month or two went by when i recieved another "generic responce"
On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the Honourable James M. Flaherty, this is to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of March 3, 2006, which
was referred by the Office of the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. Please be assured that your comments will be brought to the
Minister's attention as soon as possible."
Departmental Correspondence Unit
so the claim is that my "statements" made it to the minister of finance, but by who?
"Departmental Correspondence Unit" of what?
it didn't seem very proffessional, but i kept it, though i didn't keep any hope of recieving any direct responce, which i have not, at least not via
so we now have a "canadian military presence" in afganistan, not a "peace keeping presence" (eg. food, medicin, clothing) but a military offencive
presence, and in fact part of the "operation enduring freedom". I know this is not the first wave of canadian troops to aid in the American efforts
in the middle east, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien contributed to "operation Apollo", however, our role was still kept to the traditional
humanitarian focus that has kept canada a world class nation of dignity and pride for a century if you include the underground railway, (which is read
aloud and discussed explicitly in elementry schools to teach us passive behavior, and to help those in need.) not to mention we only agreed to
everything happened so quickly, and all we knew was alot of innoccent people died (9/11 tragedy), and a there was "evidence" pointing to the
culprits. If we knew then whatwe are beginning to know now, i wonder if our Prime Minister would have felt the pressure he did to not be labled
anti-american. But then again it is a good thing he did since President Bush later anounced "If your not with Us, then you are with the terrorist."
although i shouldn't say that since i can't seem to find a page to back it up.
yes, the liberal government was the first to send troops to the middle east, but boy have we learned alot obout the agenda of the american
republicans since late 2001, i could research and post links, but most of it i learned right here on this site, so i doubt i will be bringing anything
new to the table.
With all the unsettling views about President Bush's personal own reality series called "The WAR on TERROR", why would our newly elected Prime
Minister make his first international visit to Afganistan to support troops he sent strait out of the gate after winning the election?
(if you want to read the full acticle you need to search "Afghanistan is ‘our war' too" into google unless you have a subscription) if you do
manage to get the full article you will see a quote from Prime Minister Harper:
" Asked whether some Canadians might feel the conflict is not their country's war, the Prime Minister answered that it is “our war” because
Canadians were among those killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
“The entire world signed on to this mission when, because of the former regime in Afghanistan, thousands of people were killed in
New York City, including a couple of dozen Canadian citizens,” he told ATV's Steve Murphy. “They brought home to us how real the threat
of terror is to our own country.” "
why would a general from the canadian forces be leading NATO offencive roles? Do we have some sort of special trainingin this area that would make us
better capable of dealing with the situation than say, a general with gulf war, or first iraq war experience? or are we trying to make a point?
so all this starts making me think about my email from the office of the prime minister and and the so called "portfolio" that covered my concerns
of lasting american global supremecy, although i know thats not what i said in the letter, those that understand what i was suggesting in my original
email, know that thats what it is all about.
so i'm willing to throw out a theory that one, if not both, of canada's leading parties has decided that it is in canada's best interest to
see America prosper. ok, i cant say im not down with that, and that is only because i'm willing to admit that iv'e been raisedto be weak and
dependent on all the things that we have come to enjoy while neglecting those that have made it "cost effective", i'mscum and i'm going to go to
hell if there is one. ok if i dont put a cork in that thought i will never get to the question i posted at the beginning of this thread.
what are the chances of canada falling under the protection of homeland secruity?
i have seen a lot of strong debate here on this site as to weather the entire mission in the middle east has been a campain to promote homeland
secruity and take away the "freedoms and rights of American citizens" as Alex Jones repeats so often. now that we are witnessing an agressive stance
in afghanistan, beside the current american administration, with a Prime Minister that makes claims of "how real the threat of terror is to our own
could Bush and Harper be working on a way to sell homeland security to Canada?
[edit on 10-4-2006 by backpain]
[Mod edit - shrink a link and ex tags
[edit on 11/4/2006 by Umbrax]