A Harper majority would harm Canada and the world.

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
When you start off with such bull****, the rest of the post can only be worse.

what an utter load of ****e.

The fact is, Harper praised Bush's war crimes in Iraq which has so far resulted in the slaughter of about a million innocent civilians.

If Harper had a majority government in 2003, he would have involved Canada in the illegal Iraqi war and helped Bush commit these war crimes:

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES OF IRAQ WAR VICTIMS
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

Here is Harper's own words regarding Iraq:

"It [referring to calling a Minister "Idiot"] was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win.
Montreal Gazette, April 2003

I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.
Report Newsmagazine, March 25 2002

We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.
Canadian Press Newswire, April 11, 2003

On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction. In our judgment, it was much more fundamental. It was the removing of a regime that was hostile, that clearly had the intention of constructing weapons systems. … I think, frankly, that everybody knew the post-war situation was probably going to be more difficult than the war itself. Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.
Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003

This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based o*n focus groups. We will not take a stand based o*n phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of public opinion… In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade.
Hansard, January 29, 2003

We support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win
Montreal Gazette, April 2, 2003

Harper still supports the unprovoked Iraq war crime which has killed a million innocent civilians.

Harper also supported Israel's "measured" slaughter of civilians in Lebanon including Canadian citizens. Harper failed to criticize Israel for deliberately killing UN peacekeepers including a Canadian.

Harper, like Bush, is a dangerous man. He supports war criminals and if given a chance would likely particiapte in their crimes. Canadians will regret voting for Harper, just like most Americans now regret voting for Bush.
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
73
Ottawa ,Canada
Harper is a good leader, Human and capable of mistakes, but a good leader, He has been our best PM in at least 20 years (before that I don't really have a reference point today to judge them on)

Best in at least 40ys
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
I see Harper's smear campaign against Dion has had the desired effect on you.

Harper is on his way to a majority government. Do Canadians want to give someone who is on the record supporting US and Israeli war crimes absolute control of Canada?

You are talking straight of your ass, you are making a whole lot of assumptions of what he would do had he been prime minister at the time of the commencement of the Iraq war. Fortunately he wasn't so your point is moot. His policy hasn't differed a whole lot from previous Liberal governments in regards to Israel either.
 

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
Earth as one says:
"I see Harper's smear campaign against Dion has had the desired effect on you.
Harper is on his way to a majority government. Do Canadians want to give someone who is on the record supporting US and Israeli war crimes absolute control of Canada?
__________________
But I could be wrong..."



Yes you are wrong. As usual.
 
Last edited:

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
You are talking straight of your ass, you are making a whole lot of assumptions of what he would do had he been prime minister at the time of the commencement of the Iraq war. Fortunately he wasn't so your point is moot. His policy hasn't differed a whole lot from previous Liberal governments in regards to Israel either.

Harper's pro-Iraq war crime stand was clear. If Harper controlled a majority government in March 2003, there is no doubt he would have made Canada an accomplice in American war crimes in Iraq which have killed about a million Iraqis and displaced another five million more so far.

Most Cdns. support war, Harper tells U.S. TV

Updated Fri. Apr. 4 2003 10:56 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

Opposition leader Stephen Harper has told Fox News in the U.S. that most Canadians outside Quebec support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite our government's decision not to take part in the war.

In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking "for the silent majority" of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war, Harper said.

"Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive," the Canadian Alliance leader says.

In a segment to be broadcast across the U.S. and in 41 countries Friday night and repeated on the weekend, Harper says Ottawa's position on the war is hypocritical.
"We have a government here that says Saddam Hussein is a war criminal and maintains diplomatic relations with him during the conflict," he said.

"We have a government that says they're not supportive of the conflict but it becomes more and more obvious that we have Canadian soldiers and sailors involved in the conflict."

Harper has led the criticism in recent weeks over Prime Minister Jean Chretien's refusal to back the U.S. in its efforts in Iraq. On Thursday, the House of Commons debated a motion Harper tabled that called on Ottawa to back the U.S. in its war in Iraq...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1049464033397_20?s_name=&no_ads=

Its a good thing Harper didn't have the authority and power to pass his bill.

Also you have to question Harper's judgement. He was trying to sell the exact same BS as Bush regarding Iraq's alleged WMD stockpiles:

"It is inherently dangerous to allow a country such as Iraq to retain weapons of mass destruction, particularly in light of its past aggressive behaviour. If the world community fails to disarm Iraq, we fear that other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can have these most deadly of weapons to systematically defy international resolutions and that the world will do nothing to stop them."

- Stephen Harper supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, March 20, 2003.

Only a few weeks before Harper tried to pass a motion supporting the US led unprovoked war crime against the Iraqi people, Chief UN Weapon Inspector Hans Blix publicly submitted a report to the UN Security Council which basically said Iraq was not a WMD threat, and remaining minor technical obstacles to declaring Iraq WMD free would take a few more months to resolve:

SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003

Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC

Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix

...Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Read the report. UNSCOM did not find anything in Iraq supporting war or Harper's statement. Starting a war with a country which isn't a threat and hasn't attacked anyone is a war crime. Harper supported that war crime.

Do Canadians want someone who would commit war crimes running Canada?

Canadians should consider what Harper would do if he controls a conservative majority and the US asks Canada to participate in unprovoked war crimes with Iran.

The new Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, inspired by the neocons to the south, appears determined to visit the worst excesses of George Bush's presidency on his own country. He plans to pull Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol and expand military spending. He defended Israel's massive bombing of southern Lebanon, even as Israeli warplanes bombed a clearly marked UN observation post, killing a Canadian peacekeeper. He was the first world leader to cut off funding after Hamas took over the Palestinian Authority. The decision was made despite Hamas having taken power after winning democratic elections that not only were recognized as free and fair but fulfilled demands made by the West. Harper has extended the mission for the 2,200 Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, where forty-two have died so far. He has slashed $1 billion in funding that assists the most vulnerable Canadians, including cuts in adult literacy programs, legal aid to gays and lesbians, and measures to assist unemployed youth, despite a near-record surplus of $13.2 billion for 2005-06. If the Bush Administration launches an attack on Iran there is little doubt that Harper would line up behind Washington. When the Canadian prime minister was asked about Iran before his recent speech to the UN General Assembly, he called Iran "the biggest single threat the planet faces." And he sneers at Canada's long tradition of antimilitarism and generous social services, once calling Canada "a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its...social services to mask its second-rate status."

But that is not the worst of it. The prime minister, who has begun, in very un-Canadian fashion, to close his speeches with the words "God Bless Canada," is also a born-again Christian. And Harper is rapidly building an alliance with the worst elements of the US Christian right.

Harper, who heads a minority government, is a member of the East Gate Alliance Church, part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, a denomination with 400,000 members that believes in the literal word of the Bible, faith-healing and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Women cannot be ordained in his church, homosexuality is a sin and abortion is murder. Canada, however, is unused to public displays of faith, and Harper has had to tread more lightly than George Bush. But many fear the prime minister is taking a cue from the Bush Administration and slowly mobilizing Canada's 3.5 million evangelicals--along with the 44 percent of Canadians who say they have committed themselves to Christ--as a power base. Harper has spent the past three years methodically knitting a coalition of social conservatives and evangelicals that looks ominously similar to the American model.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/hedges

Does "God Bless Canada" sound familar?

I have nothing against Christianity, or any religion. But I am against people who abuse religion to inspire hatred and justify war crimes like Bush and likely Harper if given a chance.

The real Harper will reveal himself after he has a majority government. He is a Bush clone. We should fear Harper, not hand him control of Canada.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Some canadian military were directly involved in the Iraq war, when the liberals were still
the government.
The Iraq war is 'old' now, and has almost come full circle, the american people have turned
against it, and it is 'completely' different now, than back in 2003.
no leader could now pursuade their people to be part of that war, so harper, or anyone
else who is elected will not push for canadians to participate there.
Afghanistan is a much different story, can't compare the two.
If you want to be 'stripped' of your money again, as we were in the sponsorship scandal,
by all means vote for a liberal.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I'm clear on the concept. Any Tories who don't back Harper will be severely punished. The face being tossed out of caucus, funding cuts and forced to run the next election as an independant. He can't toss everyone out, but he can toss out as many as required to maintain a majority. How big a majority Harper gets determines how many conservatives Harper can effectively punish. Most likely the threat of being tossed would keep most in line.

Harper's lawsuit to silence the right of the opposition to criticize reveals his authoritarian tendencies:

PM's tactic `authoritarian'

Use of legal action to `silence' political opposition is undemocratic, professor says in Liberal court file

Aug 08, 2008
OTTAWA–Prime Minister Stephen Harper's legal tactics are likened to those of an authoritarian state in court documents filed recently by the Liberal party.
The comparison is made in an affidavit the Liberals filed in defence against a $3.5-million defamation suit Harper launched earlier this year.

The Liberals have also served notice to the Ontario and federal governments they intend to question the constitutionality of Harper's lawsuit on grounds it is an attempt to muzzle the opposition.

The latest Liberal court filings include an affidavit from University of Toronto professor Peter Russell that argues no Canadian prime minister has sued political opponents for libel despite a history of dramatic accusations during stormy debates in Parliament.

"This use of legal action to silence the opposition is characteristic of authoritarian governments," Russell says in an expert opinion obtained by Toronto lawyer Chris Paliare, representing the Liberals.

"It is incompatible with democratic government," argues Russell, a political scientist and professor emeritus at the university.

The reference to authoritarian rule and the rare constitutional challenge of Harper's libel action revolve around his request for a court order to prevent the Liberal party from using or distributing copies of an audio tape at the centre of the suit.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/474403

Under the current laws, its likely Harper will loose his case to silence the opposition. But if he gets a majority, he may use that power to change laws including new powers to silence opposition and start wars.

Canadians should fear a Harper majority.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Lets be real here, we don't know how a Harper Majority would behave.

He has never run the country. He's been in charge of a right wing minority against a squabling chorus of left wing parties who outnumber him.

There is the Reason the NDP got to help draft the budget.


Nothing Harper has done up until now reflects what it would be like with him in charge. He's been a figurehead for years.


Im not saying he'd be a bad PM. just that you cant judge his current record, because he's been nothing but a figurehead.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Earth as One:

Seriously a Million people have not died in Iraq due to the war. I don't think you fully understand how many a million is in country of basically 23 million (as Kurdistan is largely untouched).

Your looking at a death rate (before normal death of age etc) of four and a half percent, give or take. That kind of death rate is unprecedented in human history, even amongst people who TRY to have high death rates.

Its not even plausible propaganda, its just a big number thrown out there that no one even truly understands. They may as well scream a trillion people died in Iraq.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
I just hope you get a chance to find out.........
I don't need to hit rock bottom to know that it sucks. Harper isn't the right leader for this country. Just like Bush isn't the right leader for the US.

It hasn't taken long for Harper to take the country from balanced books and surplus tax dollars to the brink of recession and fudging the books. After all he's got Harris's old cronies working for him. They left Ontario with a 5 billion dollar problem, health and education systems in turmoil and a few really really nice parting gifts those pals of theirs.

Now that they have a chance to burgle on a national scale, the scumbags have scurried in to the fascist party and started the lies. Remember when lies were supposed to be a bad thing?

Nah we need a Liberal majority and strong leadership to bring Canada back to the prosperous and peaceful country it once was. And a hand gun ban to get rid of the criminal gun nuts.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
I don't need to hit rock bottom to know that it sucks. Harper isn't the right leader for this country. Just like Bush isn't the right leader for the US.

It hasn't taken long for Harper to take the country from balanced books and surplus tax dollars to the brink of recession and fudging the books. After all he's got Harris's old cronies working for him. They left Ontario with a 5 billion dollar problem, health and education systems in turmoil and a few really really nice parting gifts those pals of theirs.

Now that they have a chance to burgle on a national scale, the scumbags have scurried in to the fascist party and started the lies. Remember when lies were supposed to be a bad thing?

Nah we need a Liberal majority and strong leadership to bring Canada back to the prosperous and peaceful country it once was. And a hand gun ban to get rid of the criminal gun nuts.

So when...in what year exactly....did Harper run up this alleged deficit?

What, you think Harper is responsible for the coming recession? (If there is one......)

No, I'm afraid I don't remember when politicians didn't lie.......the first election I voted in Liberal Pierre Trudeau ran on a platform of no wage and price controls, and introduced them immediately after he won....

Oh, thanks. Now I'm a criminal gun nut.

I appreciate that.:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

Makes about as much sense as the rest of your post.

Please explain (use little words as us redneck criminal gun nuts ain't too bright) how seizing firearms from little ole me in Saint John NB will prevent Jamaicans from whacking each other on the corner of Jane and Finch in TO.........with guns smuggled into the country?

Here's a fact for you........less than 3% of the guns seized from criminals were EVER registered..........
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Oh and a Conservative Majority would be great for our country.

Harper is a good leader, Human and capable of mistakes, but a good leader, He has been our best PM in at least 20 years (before that I don't really have a reference point today to judge them on)

You did have to specify that he was human though.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
So when...in what year exactly....did Harper run up this alleged deficit?

What, you think Harper is responsible for the coming recession? (If there is one......)

No, I'm afraid I don't remember when politicians didn't lie.......the first election I voted in Liberal Pierre Trudeau ran on a platform of no wage and price controls, and introduced them immediately after he won....

Oh, thanks. Now I'm a criminal gun nut.

I appreciate that.:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

Makes about as much sense as the rest of your post.

Please explain (use little words as us redneck criminal gun nuts ain't too bright) how seizing firearms from little ole me in Saint John NB will prevent Jamaicans from whacking each other on the corner of Jane and Finch in TO.........with guns smuggled into the country?

Here's a fact for you........less than 3% of the guns seized from criminals were EVER registered..........


If there is one? hahahahahahahhahahahhahhahhahhahahahahhahahhahhahhah You are crackin me up down here over there.:lol:
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
BTW Unforgiven, according to last week's Globe and Mail, the cost of Conservative promises so far is 2.9 billion dollars. The cost of Liberal promises? 4.2 billion bucks. So much for responsible fiscal management.

BTW, the NDP and Gree Party promises both stacked up into the tens of billions.