If anyone were looking for an example of just how truly idiotic the man running this country is, look no further than this quote…
“If a country wants to be taken seriously in the world, it must have the capacity to act. It’s that simple. Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player. You’re the one chattering on the sideline that everyone smiles at, but no one listens to.”
Is that what being taken seriously in the world demands - military might? If so, then we forfeit our ability to condemn those that use violence as a means to an end. If to be ‘a player’ one must possess significant military capabilities, then who are we to condemn anyone that adheres to that line of thinking and the inevitable application of force?
To be a player, Mr. Harper, you must first examine what and whom you are playing with. And if your conclusion is that to be taken seriously on the world stage requires a military capability that is substantial enough to placate those that view such a requirement as a prerequisite for inclusion, then you must also accept the reality that those that are willing to use violence must be graced the same allowance for the exact same reason, no matter who they are.
Report
I sometimes wonder who all reads your blog and hope they take a good long look into themselves after reading your comments on them.
Thanks for the post.
Report
When I heard him say that yesterday, I thought of a line from “The Mission” where Jeremy Irons says:
“If might is right, then love has no place in the world”.
I am surprised, that a man who has children does not see the fault in his logic. It’s like punishing your child for hitting one of their siblings by spanking them.
Report
His penis must be HUGE!
Report
He’s an idiot.
Report
Good LORD. I think he’s actually getting more and more stupid as his term runs on. While I agree that we should have enough arms in order to be able to defend or fight if need be, but having the world see Canada as a “player” because of our military strength is just fucked up. What happened to having strength in human rights, economy, hell, even peacekeeping? I think his statement about feeling like Canada is “sitting on the sidelines” says a whole hell of a lot about his character…I’m going to take a stab in the dark and assume he was picked last for teams at recess and has something to prove.
Report
Perhaps doing a cover of the song you referenced in the title of this entry (World Party), and dedicating to the PM would be apropos.
Report
Mr. Harper professes himself a pious man. Perhaps he should revisit Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians:
“Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, bretheren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are” (I Corinthians 1:25-28)
Report
harper and bush are a good couple (idiots)
Report
I don’t disagree that it is a bit of a stupid quote.
But couldn’t an argument be made that Canada could intervene in places more with an expanded military - Darfur, Rwanda, Burma. Obiviously the way he is phrasing it here - we are looking to join the ranks of the bullies rather than be a helper nation.
Report
That very same quote stuck out to me yesterday and made me roll my eyes. Fabulous strategy for running a country: “No, Mom, I need ALL the G.I. Joes, or else the other kids won’t think I’m cool!” Very mature. He makes it sound like Canada has one big inferiority complex it needs to overcompensate for… or maybe that’s just how he sees us, which is fantastic considering he’s our leader. He’s always seemed to have scorn and contempt for this country and its people, and this just further enforces that image. Plus, he’s just publicly ridiculed Canada by pretty much admitting we’re useless on the global scene: “Okay, I know we always sucked before, but NOT ANYMORE!” Classy.
Report
I’m no fan of the military industrial complex but Canada does need to be better equipped for international emergencies. Yes let’s super size love but we have to be able to pull our weight too.
Report
Quoting Blogic:
Gee, what do you want to achieve there by “intervening militarily”?? Why should Canada (or any other country) intervene militarily in Darfur other than embedded in a UN-mission? We don’t need more weapons or troops. Instead, look WHO is fighting the wars for you - Kids that dropped school or for any other reasons haven’t got a perspective in their community. To great extents they are poorly trained in technical, social and psychological needs. This is how we create our Abu Ghraibs or Kabuls (referring to the case of german soldiers playing chess and bowling with skulls and bones of afghan people killed in the conflict).
There is something completely going wrong for my opinion.
Report
I’d like to take this opportunity to forfeit my right to be a player.
Report
To chalk this issue up to this nation having better emergency response capabilities in the context of seriously developing this nation’s defense sector is naïve. That is nothing more than fodder for the public so that they can view it in a traditionalist and antiquated light.
The reality here is that that this policy is rooted in the development of the defense sector, that one of its goals it to have that sector impact local economies, which is something that has so infected and corrupted American government over the last 61 years as to stupefy.
This isn’t about being able to respond to international disasters, this is about the establishment of a permanent defense block in this country that will result in communities becoming economically dependant on it and, in turn, those MP’s that represent them placed in the position of having to promote the defense sector in fear or being voted out because of the economic implications of not placating defense contractors in their ridings, and ultimately the country as a whole. The same thing has been happening in Congressional Districts throughout the United States for decades.
The Prime Minister can paint it as softly as he wishes, but that is the reality of this policy. More troops equals more facilities equals more communities that rely on them. Just look at what happens to a town in the US when a base gets closed down. They’re economically ruined – so bases rarely get closed down and Congressmen and Senators fight to keep them alive to ensure their own political survival. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out.
Report
Quoting Tuuli22:
Who do you think supplies UN missions? Much as I wish it was, this argument isn’t as simple as peace and love and paper hearts for everyone.
Report
“Hate the game, not the player.” capacity to act and responsibility go together. sports analogies do nicely in delineating arms and geopolitical strategy….
And, its easy to make a speech like that at an armoury. kind of like Bush always goes to a military base to blather on rah-rah about Iraq (”Steempy you eejit!!!” :)
patrick pitt: now you stop that. I just spit out my coffee on my keyboard!!! mwahahahahah!! :)
Report
Quoting Andrew Sharpe:
Nothing like that being said.
Acting integrated in an UN-mission firstly does not require the same deployment of troops and material from the individual country and secondly requires some sort of legitimation by more than just one country. The person I quoted mentioned Darfur - why does Canada need forces which are armed to the teeth to intervene there in a humanitarian aspect? That’s like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Report
truly inane…
some people never progress past the point of being the 3rd period recess bully, where you prove your mettle by picking on the weak new kid…
Report
Quoting KET:
Sounds about right.
Quoting Patrick Pitt:
Hilarious.
I really doubt the extra 25 000 troops, ships, helicopters, and other stuff is going to make much of a difference on the world stage. Even with this augmentation, our military is still peanuts compared to the USA’s. It’s not as if we get a couple more toys, and suddenly the other kids will want to play with us.
My warning bells always go off when Harper dumbs down policy like this. I do not appreciate vague juvenile comments about a ‘game,’ ’spectators,’ and ‘players,’ when he’s talking about a serious long term military expansion plan. It reminds me of his jelly bean comment in regards to the SPP.
Report
Quoting Tuuli22:
Are you suggesting that the Canadian military is adequately equipped to intervene in a situation like Darfur? I think D’Allaire might disagree with you. I will never vote for Harper but neither will I unequivocally denounce military spending.
Report
We, I would assume, all knew this day was coming?
Report
Yeah, I cringed when I read that yesterday. Other people have already said everything I wanted to say about it. Ugh.
Report
Matt, are you resting? er.. resting your brain?
Man, you are like the energizer bunny right in that brain of yours, my god….
Report
It’s getting tight on this planet in various meanings. Countries expect others to be a permanent threat to them and their interests, that’s why they see the need to arm - but ironically this is again reason for the others to feel threatened and thus to arm on their part. And now add the fact that we’re slowly running out of the resources that secured our high life standard and supremacy in the world the last 200 years…
Report
Quoting Patrick Pitt:
or he’s compensating for it. ;)
What is it with politicians and having to “prove” something? Reminds me of a recent quote by Mayor Brodie here in Richmond in regards to a big Olympic “party” he’s throwing (at taxpayer’s expense). He said it will “boost our ego” and “put our city on the map and have it seen as something other than an extension of Vancouver”. Really, who fucking cares?
Report
Quoting Roy El Saghir:
Isn’t that how you become a man?
Quoting Andrew Sharpe:
We are witnessing many international emergencies in the making. UN is actually powerless to help the people in Darfur (and have been for many years) and is not stepping in to deal with the humanitarian crisis going on in Burma. There are times when one should let the country try and resolve their conflicts on their own, but at some point a strong intervention is needed - such as two cases above. Does anyone really believe that “militarized” Canada will have a stronger voice in the UN - a voice enough to over-ride the powers of US, India, China? A voice enough to make a difference?
Report
Quoting Andrew Sharpe:
Not at all am I suggesting something like that. As you can read I questioned the advisability of a military intervention in Darfur in general.
As for the question wether Canada’s military is well enough equipped or not for whatever - all I can say is that Canada doesn’t spend too much less money for its military per capita than my country does.
How can I effectively end a conflict that is mainly based on the fact that the region is simply one of the poorest in the world and in addition to that ethnically extremely disrupted, by exercising brute force? I’m afraid You’ll have to find an answer to that question first, before demanding one for the other.
Report
Quoting vika:
Never.
I’m afraid countries striving increasingly for military strength could be direct consequence of the massive loss of credibility the UN suffered after the US acted unilaterally in 2003.
Report
I lean more toward Mr. Harper’s idea here to be completely honest. To do nothing whether that be military or otherwise forfeits our right to weigh in on world matters. I know you’d all like to think he’s blowing the trumpet and condoning outright war and malevolence but I doubt that is the sole approach here. Until the UN grows a spine, the best we’ve got to help the troubled places in the world is our military and our commitment to serve a cause, something clearly waning these days.
I don’t know, I hate to defend Mr Harper quite like that, I truly do agree he is an idiot and somewhat high on himself but I agree in part with what he’s saying.
Report
Some things just aren’t that simple and it is really frightening when those with the power try to make it that simple. Every village has it’s idiot. Nice post title though; one of my very favorite songs.
Report
I guess, then, no one listens to the Swiss? Yeah, they set a very bad example for diplomacy…
Report
I was driving to the ferry on Vancouver Island today and was SHOCKED to see a billboard that said, “Obama for President” United States of America. Not far from that one was another telling Harper to quit being difficult for Obama.
Needless to say I was pretty damned surprised. I had my camera but it was raining AND I was trying to make the 1PM sailing. (I made it)
Maybe somebody in Victoria can cruise down 17 and get the shots.
Report
Quoting Scott Halland:
But, until Canadian government grows a spine, its missions will follow the path of Afghanistan. All that military money would be best spent on the humanitarian aid to starving populations, as well as on reestablishment of agricultural programs in Africa, aid that has been cut shorter and shorter every year by Mr. Harper. What is the primary cause of civil unrest in ANY country? Hunger and unemployment.
p.s. If only the Swiss would talk…
Report
Quoting Scott Halland:
If our government actually cared about the people in these troubled places, I might be inclined to agree with you.
Report
I almost forgot… something on which Liberal and Conservative politicians seem to agree.
Report
Has Matthew Good ever thought about running for this country? I think everyone here would agree with me that that sounds like a good idea. :D
Report
I don’t think Canada needs a larger Army. Canada’s citizens have always come through when things have gotten to Pucker Factor 10. You can’t fault the Canadian troops, but there are enough combat troops in North America.
The question will always be, when do we use military force? Or do we sit bye and do nothing. The US (and the Soviet Union ) saved Europe and Asia 60 years ago but no more. We have heard the angry voices. We are coming home. We are going to let someone else be the “Cop”.
There is no “humanitarian crises” in Burma. What there is, is murder. And everyone is sticking close to home. Britain? Germany? Spain? Ha! Russia? The Rich Arab World? About a million and a half people will begin dying very soon from lack of water and disease; and if the US Marines assault over the beach France will be in an uproar…..and Spain…….
And China waits………..
Report
The guy who wants to be leader of MY country just nominated a guy named Doug Goodyear to be in charge of the Republican convention this summer.
Doug Goodyear is the CEO of a company named DCI.
DCI was paid $348,000 to lobby on behalf of the military junta that currently runs Burma. You know, they’re the guys who gunned down protesters and blocked international aid from reaching Burma after the cyclone.
Report
Goodyear decided it wasn’t. He resigned.
Report
I just finally read that articlr,
Here is the perfect plan to make Olympics safe and clean up Vancouver in one blow: built a base at Whistler and recruit the homeless (make it a draft, just in case they refuse). This will save money since the city will not have to hire, dare I say it, independent contractors as security. Comparatively speaking, half of recruits at Esquimalt base in Victoria smoke pot - this is still better than russian army though (sub. pot with vodka).
We can also:
1. scare our US friends
2. have a community that is economically independent from the base - after all Whistler is all about snow. Once the snow melts (due to climate change), then the base can become the core of a vibrant community!
Report
Finally vika, you make perfect sense!!!!!!……..Bob
Report
I dont really see a huge issue here. Sure, I disagree with the quote. It sounds like Harpers taking out the measuring tape and decided to wave it around a bit. I dont, however, disagree with the proposed legislation. We’re not militarizing the entire nation here. If you actually read the proposal theres four pillars that are spoken about that arent exactly the military industrial complex apocalypse everyones making it seem.
The first being readiness. The main issues they deal with is the procurement of spare parts for equipment they already have and the maintenance of said equipment. I have many friends in the forces that have basically taken apart two pieces of machinery to make one functional one. The other being additional equipment and fuel for training exercises. Well, lets see. Training 11,000 soldiers without additional ammunition, fuel and equipment would be mighty difficult wouldnt you say?
The second being infrastructure improvements. They say that more than 50% of the current CF infrastructure including buildings, roads etc. are 50 years old? Id say its about time for some new buildings here. If we dont modernize these things, whats the point for even having a military?
The third is the modernization of CF equipment. If you read the article it says that they’re looking at replacing equipment because “over the next 20 years, six of the CF’s core equipment fleets will reach the end of their operational lives and will need to be replaced” including “destroyers, frigates, maritime patrol aircraft, fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, fighter aircraft and land combat vehicles and systems.” I dont really see why we shouldnt be updating these things? Flying around in 50 year old fighter jets and patrolling the Arctic with our current fleet in twenty years seems pretty silly, wouldnt you say? By the way, the bulk of these funds are going to build up to eight vessels and a naval port on our soon to be newest coastline in the north.
The final point (or “pillar”) is the recruitment of additional soldiers. THIS is, in my view at least, the easiest to justify. We’re not talking about doubling the size of the forces or anything even close to it. We’re talking about adding an additional 11,000 troops to it. Of which, SIX thousand are reserves. And this is the BULK of the money being spent. If you spread this out over the planned amount of years, this growth merely grows proportionately alongside our projected population growth here in Canada.
Its not all good though. I dont like the missile defence topic being brought up again nor do I like the way the tories are trying to sell this.
Although, I do believe if you look past the dumbasses trying to sell this, the product they’re pushing is one we need whether you choose to believe it’s necessary or not.
I dont know. This definitely isnt the type of forum I should be writing this into but I just read through all these comments and couldnt believe that most of the commenters choose not to believe in the necessity of most of this legislation. Without the modernization here, I really dont see how we could have ANY viable military presence in the future.
Just my thoughts! Feel free to rip it to shreds!
Report
Harper is not an idiot, he just thinks the Canadian people are all idiots–his simplistic ridiculous statements are carefully crafted to convince lesser intellects of the validity of his policies. Perhaps while he watches America crumble, he sees a spot opening up for Canada … he wants Canada to be everything I pray it never becomes.
Does the kid who refuses to fight forfeit his right to play in the yard?
Does the player who doesn’t throw down his gloves forfeit his right to play hockey?
Only when the wrong people are in charge.
Harper is patronizing, and he may actually be evil.
Report
Quoting Tuuli22:
I think where there is a large loss of human life occuring we have a responsibility to protect and intervene (diplomatically, politically, militarily, culturally, through aid, NGOs - all of it). When abuses occur on our side we have a greater responsibility to have the antagonists tried internationally through the law.
Report
Quoting Matthew Good:
I don’t think this will seriously develop this nation’s defense sector. $30 billion may sound like a lot but it is actually not. It won’t create a vast military economy to compare this to the US where they spend nearly ten times as much. Half the money is slated to be spent on people. Most of what is slated for equipment expense is to modernize existing equipment – bring it up to par. A large portion of new equipment will be purchased from overseas – not built in Canada.
The argument that the military industrial complex in the US has corrupted American politics is worth pursuing. I certainly won’t disagree and the case is documented but the context of this build-out of the military industrial complex was largely the cold war when there was a race to outspend the Russians. This is the reasoning for American power today not the inherent benefits gained by corrupt military contractors. It’s like saying the trend of aging baby boomers will lead to corruption in the pharmaceutical industry.
Even if this policy does develop local economies what is wrong with this impact? MPs beholden to their localities is not something new. The government subsidizes many local industries. Look at the auto sector in Canada. It is a mess! Is shilling out the auto sector a corruption of the public good? How do we protect the livelihood of workers in this industry? A discussion well worth having – the answer isn’t immediate though.
Economically – this would be a positive for the North. It will help develop communities in the northern territories. A large part of the policy is to make proper territorial claims in the arctic - to exploit the natural resources which are increasingly becoming accessible.
I don’t know what the answer is here truthfully – it is more of an ongoing question than an answer - but I do think rational discussion can be made to support this policy. It isn’t completely absent minded. The ship of fools isn’t sinking yet. Hold your horses.
Report
In my opinion, once the conservatives got elected into power across the board, it was only a matter of time before they started (pardon my language) fucking things up. Everywhere that they are in power, they’re spending money where it needn’t be spent, they’re changing policies that needn’t be changed, inventing policies that shouldn’t be on the current agenda, and focusing on a future that may not exist if the world keeps burying it’s head in the sand…sooo…I’m really glad that my fellow canadians decided to elect MP fuckhead to bring more non issues to the table rather than focus on what Canada is really all about.
I distinctly remember being taught in school during the 90’s that Canada was a cultural mosaic and a peace keeping nation…I guess that’s over with now, I wonder what my son will learn 10 years down the road…that the environment is an illusion and the economy is reality…??? Either way, somewhere our gov’t got it’s priorities all mixed up and lines crossed…we’ve gotten ourselves in one big hurry and no guarantees for it.
Again, in my opinion, military spending proves nothing and will never help to change the course of history.
Report
Quoting Becca Steps:
Depends on how you spend it doesn’t it? As far as history goes, it is written in blood of those who made it happen. History is no just pen and paper, I know that much.
To say something good about the militarization though - Friedrich the Great (a.k.a. Old Fritz) pulled Prussia out of the slums of Europe and was able to make great reforms due to his military successes. Mind you there are no people like him in politics or military anymore (i.e. devoted to the cause and the country, educated, composing music etc.)…
Report
“I know I’m paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?”
Yes steve, I think you’re paranoid enough for all of us.
Who exactly are we supposed to defending against and how will we know when we have enough military.
Report
This could be about oil too. It’s the war in Iraq that is driving the huge increases in the price of a barrel, demand hasn’t gone up and supply has gone down anywhere near enough to explain a 400% increase.
While I doubt Bush was smart enough to see it coming, having a war in the center of the largest oil producing region has created a tension in the world market that the oil industry continues to exploit. Canada now has huge reserves coming online with the oil sands, Harper must know that if we keep helping the US destabilize the entire Gulf region our oil will be worth much more.
Maybe Harper’s not so stupid, maybe he just lacks a conscience.
Report
Harper is a very intelligent man who lacks any moral conscience and is just overall genetically impolite, but he’s an economics man, that’s where they found him, in the economics department, and that’s all he knows, numbers and statistics. He’s probably never even broke a nail, that’s just about how far his life experience has taken him.