lets cut and run

[shortmanx5]

Re: RE: lets cut and run

Mogz, cortez and I weren't in the box when that happened.

Joking, of course! shortmanx5, be careful not to cross the line; the Administration or the Moderators are quite unforgiving of arrogance when it comes to respecting their authority to govern this forum (as was demonstrated elsewhere tonight). I advice caution, in the interest of seeing you continue to express your colourful opinions here tonight.

?????
what have i said that was bad

 

[Jersay]

Take care of it man cuz I think we are going to need lots of lean mean fightin machines.

Yeah.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: lets cut and run

I wasn,t talkin to you I was talkin to fiveparadox.

Actually, I was only wondering if maybe you had a foreign type of keyboard or something (they come in dozens of configurations). I didn't intend to offend you or anything. Consider anything I might have send to the contrary thoroughly withdrawn and apologized for.

No FP I have a forigne type of head, I never considered anything you said even remotely offensive, I,m self taught on the keyboard and for over twenty years I have wondered where the bloody apostrophy was, I have been using the comma as a sub for all that time and never bothered to ask anyone where it actually was. You are the kindest most considerate most diplomatic most helpful organism in these pages. Anytime you want to kick an old stinky beaver arround help yourself, you have a free kick the beaver card.

PS: maybe someday we'll have beer and icecream.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: lets cut and run

I wasn,t talkin to you I was talkin to fiveparadox.

Actually, I was only wondering if maybe you had a foreign type of keyboard or something (they come in dozens of configurations). I didn't intend to offend you or anything. Consider anything I might have send to the contrary thoroughly withdrawn and apologized for.

No FP I have a forigne type of head, I never considered anything you said even remotely offensive, I,m self taught on the keyboard and for over twenty years I have wondered where the bloody apostrophy was, I have been using the comma as a sub for all that time and never bothered to ask anyone where it actually was. You are the kindest most considerate most diplomatic most helpful organism in these pages. Anytime you want to kick an old stinky beaver arround help yourself, you have a free kick the beaver card.

PS: maybe someday we'll have beer and icecream.

Beaver, we're agreeing again.

Five drives me nuts sometimes with lefty idealism, so I remind myself he's an urban 18 year old.

But there is absolutely no doubt he is an extremely nice person.

And Beav, you've got a pretty good sense of humour yourself.

Although you are wrong about EVERYTHING! And you're old enough to know better!

Okay, that's my nice-niceys for THIS decade.

Bring 'em ON!

 

[Lotuslander]

Five Paradox wrote

Toro, again, Prime Minister wishes to remain in Afghanistan (I wish for the same thing); however, if ever the House of Commons issues an ordinance otherwise, then the Canadian Armed Forces are to be withdrawn, and neither the Prime Minister nor the Chief of the Defence Staff would have the authority to prevent it.

Actually I am pretty sure that Parliament has no jurisdiction in this matter unless they passed a law banning Canadian troops from Afghanistan or foriegn soil. Troop deployments are the exclusive purvey of the Government. I believe a declaration of war can be made through a simple Order-In-Council. This differs from the States where the Executive has the power to deploy troops how they want but, need the support of Congress to actually "declare war". An ordinance, motion or resolution are not legally binding, the Nickel resolution of 1919 being a prime example, though they do posses some persuasive powers or weight in the murky realm of constitutional tradition and convention-the unwritten aspect of our consitution. A resolution or motion is simply the "opinion of the House" at a particular moment in time and while they can influence how the Executive acts contravening their meanings would not be unconsitutional or illegal.

Interstingly, if such a motion did pass or even such a bill became law there would a conflict between the advice of Government and that of the House of Commons and Senate, this would put the Her Excellency in a difficult position as the Government may advise her not to give the bill Royal assent. As the Governor General is bound to follow the advice of her ministers I do not see any other choice but for the bill not to be proclaimed. This of course is the Governments prerogative.

Recently questions have been raised about American military deployments and troops levels more specifically is America running out of soldiers? This is a good question [/b]Shortmanx5 stated that there are around 1.4 million Americans in uniform, 150,000 in Iraq. On the surface this does not look like much of a problem but, there are a number of facotrs which need to be considered regarding this question. Firstly only half of all soldiers are on duty at any given time. Next, South Asia, Japan and Korea accomodate almost 100,000 troops, Afghanistan another 20,000 plus, Europe perhaps as much as 50,000. North and South America, Africa and Australia the rest with the majority obviously being in North America. Are the American over stretched? It is hard to say with these numbers. On the surface it appears that international troop commitments only occupy about 370,000 soldiers (out of 700,000 on duty) at any given time, however, we do not know what other commitments are needed in North America itself for patrolling the borders, training etc...In the same light we do not know out of the 1.4 million how many are soldiers on the ground and how many are bureaucrats? -I once heard that Canada had the highest percentage of flag officers (generals and admirals) compared to the total size of its armed forces. - I think one thing we can assume is that most of the members of the Armed Forces over seas belong to the Army as it is the biggest of the three services, I would estimate at least 60% of the US armed forces of 1.4 million belong to the army, or 840,000. Divide that by 2 and you get 420,000 on active duty at any given time. Now how many of the 370,000 stationed over seas are army members I do not know but by looking at these numbers I would guess that they are running closer to their maximum capacity than one would think.

Another interesting aspect of the War in Iraq that has come to my attention is the American governments casualty listings. The US Defence department says that approx imately 2100 service personnel have died and 12,000 have been wounded. Every Sunday I religiously watch the McLaughlin Report and their numbers courtesy of the Financial Times (hardly a leftwing or liberal paper) are much higher. They agree on how many soldiers have been killed but, the number of injured is nearly four times as high !!! at 42,000 plus. One show Pat Buchanan and Tony Blankley, both pretty right wing fellows questioned this number vehemently but, the next week their concerns must have been alleiviated because they did not bring up the topic again. The discrepency may result in the way that the Pentagon classifies "injured". The Financial Times describes injured as any soldier who has a physical injury, mental illness, sttempted suicide, etc... all of whom are now out of Iraq. I do not know the US military's definition.

 

[FiveParadox]

I suppose you are, again, correct, Lotuslander.

However, if Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada and Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces were to be put into that position ... who is to say that the opinion of the Government of Canada would be the opinion heeded by Her Excellency? In particular, if the Parliament was unstable at the time (as this next Parliament is likely to be), and the House voted in a majority that the opinion of the House was that soldiers should be withdrawn, then would the Governor General have the constitutional authority to issue any such order notwithstanding the objections of the Government?

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: lets cut and run

I suppose you are, again, correct, Lotuslander.

However, if Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada and Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces were to be put into that position ... who is to say that the opinion of the Government of Canada would be the opinion heeded by Her Excellency? In particular, if the Parliament was unstable at the time (as this next Parliament is likely to be), and the House voted in a majority that the opinion of the House was that soldiers should be withdrawn, then would the Governor General have the constitutional authority to issue any such order notwithstanding the objections of the Government?

This would be like waving a magic wand over the nation and intoning "Become a Republic".

 

[FiveParadox]

I am not sure what you mean, Colpy, lol.

 

[FiveParadox]

Perhaps it would be prudent to cite the Honourable Senator Forsley.

The Governor General and the Lieutenant-Governors have the right to be consulted by their Ministers, and the right to encourage or warn them. But they almost invariably must act on their Ministers’ advice, though there may be very rare occasions when they must, or may, act without advice or even against the advice of the Ministers in office.

There is, then, precedent for Her Majesty's representative in Canada to act in the absence of, or even contrary to, the advice of her Ministers if there is cause to do so.

:!: Revision : Corrected a typo.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: lets cut and run

I am not sure what you mean, Colpy, lol.

It would be something like the "King-Byng Thing". The GG ignoring the wishes of the PM means big trouble for the GG, as it gives the PM an instant, no-lose election issue.............back in the 20s the monarchy was strong enough to withstand the spat, today I think it would finish it.

The PM would go to the people saying this autocrat is trying to run the nation, the people would re-elect the PM BIG TIME, and the PM would abolish the monarchy.

Readers' Digest Condensed version.

 

[FiveParadox]

I was not saying that she should; the reserve powers of the Crown are meant to be used in the most dire of circumstances, of course (I am sure that you would concede, Colpy, there are circumstances under which the action of the Governor General of Canada notwithstanding the objection of a Prime Minister would be warranted and with cause).

 

[Lotuslander]

The GG always acts on the advice of the her ministers except in very unusual circumstances. In some ways the opinion of Parliament does not matter. If the vote widrawing troops was a confidence motion that would be a different matter but, assuming it is not, then the Government can not fall. The Governor General does not act on Parliament's advice only on the advice of the PM and cabinet. In rare circumstances the GG retains special prerogatives which may contravene her ministers advice, in such situations the ministry almost invariably falls and if new elections are not called then the leader of the opposition is asked to form a government. Indeed, a cabinet that does not retain the confidence of the GG would be dismissed. The point is that responsible government revolves around the Crown following the advice of the Executive whic in turn must be supported with the confidence of the Commons. I suppose one could hypothesise that the Speakers of the Senate and Commons may in a certain way as traditional messengers of the Crown within their houses and informants to the Crown from their chambers could be called upon to offer advice but, I have not heard of this ever taking place and would imagine that it would not happen except in a crisis situation, such as the fragmentation of the governing political party or the death of a PM etc...

Eugene Forsey has written alot on the power of the Crown as has Andrew Heard who is a prof at Simon Fraser University.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: lets cut and run

I was not saying that she should; the reserve powers of the Crown are meant to be used in the most dire of circumstances, of course (I am sure that you would concede, Colpy, there are circumstances under which the action of the Governor General of Canada notwithstanding the objection of a Prime Minister would be warranted and with cause).

Oh, absolutely!

The fact that an act has serious consequences does not mean it isn't the correct course of action.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think it depends on the circumstances; I am sure there is some situation, some time in our future, where the Governor General of Canada will be forced to act to protect Canada and the Parliament from an oppressive Prime Minister — I mean, we have been lucky to have such respectful and intelligent prime ministers (all joking aside), smart enough not to "abuse" the institution (serious abuse, I mean).

Because when you get right down to it, Her Majesty's representative is probably the one and only line of defense against an oppressive Government.

 

[cortez]

are you saying the GG is suggesting we cut and run?

 

[FiveParadox]

No, cortez; I doubt that Her Excellency would ever take a position on an event of current affairs such as this one.

 

[Blackleaf]

because the yankee boys down south -- and their UK poodle would have a problem extending their empire --without the help of LITTLE countries like ours

Canada is Britain's poodle. That means you are the poodle of a poodle.

 

[orpheus]

Well done Mr. Harper.

Just reading this makes me feel filthy.

In either case, now that we're in Afghanistan, we should stay in it. We can't half ass a job. If we leave now without reconstructing we'll look like a bunch of jackasses.

 

[Jay]

Well done Mr. Harper.

 

[orpheus]

Well done Mr. Harper.

I would love dearly to shove a confederate flag up your ass.
::sigh:: One of the drawbacks of the internet I'm afraid.