Posted on 11/01/2005 8:57:02 PM PST by NorthOf45
Ping
"Another Canuck who gets it. We're not all the same up here."
Thanks to sites like FR, we know! Thanks for posting this!
Well done. He at least reaches the position taken by the ALP Right.
Ping!
Here's another regarding the Iranian threat to Israel ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513848/posts
And that would not have been a bad outcome all by it self. Th have the center of the Muslim world tear itself apart and waste their blood and treasure would be rather nice.
However, its likely that Israel would get creamed even as a bystander to the dog fight, and we would have to do without mid-east oil for 5 years.
Ultimately, tho, Iran would have won the cat-fight and taken all of Iraq. By staying the course in Iraq, the U.S., Britain, Australia and other staunch allies have avoided this catastrophe and succeeded beyond the imagining of many critics in clearing the way for democracy in Iraq.
Nice as that is, it is but a tip of the spear of what is in fact the grand plan for democracy all over the middle east.
Thank you. My About page (or should that be my "Aboot Page") sorely needs to be updated. : )
Good for you. Thanks.
LOL :)
Well said.
Thanks for the post! Will Canada wake up?
Glad to see it.
Unfortunately, your government has aligned itself with the French. If you gave Quebec to France, could sanity be restored?
good story. Thanks!
THIS HAS TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ON APRIL FOOLS DAY
"The people of our country have long understood that, as a proud citizen of the world, Canada has global responsibilities. We cant solve every problem, but we will do what we can to protect others, to raise them up, to make them safe." Paul Martin
An insomniac bump for later reading. :) Thanks for posting it.
It is not Quebec. The problem sits squarely at the English Canadian elites in Ontario. As long as the sheeples from Sudbury to Ottawa continue voting for them, there is no way Canada will choose to go with the United States on the critical issues.
I'm not laughing at that. I remember some people had characterized Paul Martin as relatively friendly to the US back when he just became the Prime Minister in late 2003, and saying he will "rebuild the bridge", and that "he is as conservative as Canada can go". And interestingly, back when Mark Latham appeared relatively sane, his stance were being compared with Paul Martin - even though at heart Martin is a left-pandering opportunitist while Latham is a left-leaning psychopath.
In general, your own Gough Whitlam was considered Australia's Pierre Trudeau in terms of leftism. The difference is Trudeau was Prime Minister in Canada from 1968 to 1984 with only a two-year interruption between 1978 to 80, while Whitlam was booted in 1975 after only 3 years in office. Trudeau so successfully modified Canada into his own vision that even today, after Trudeau was out of office for more than 2 decades and the man dead 5 years ago, it is still impossible to see anything in Canada's political, social, and economic matters that are without his influence. Canada could be spelled as T-R-U-D-E-A-U and a majority of Canadians still speak of him as if he is their national hero. Could we imagine most Australians recall Whitlam with such fondness?
Both Whitlam and Latham got their answers in no uncertain terms. I think Latham scored a record low for the ALP at the last Federal election. As voting in Australia is compulsory, election results are a good indication of how the nation feels. I tend to think of Trudeau as a Don Dunstan - someone who enaged in conduct that attracted attention. In short, Trudeau attracted attention towards Canada. Canadians felt noticed and less insignificant in the world. I wonder if this explains the rise of Canadian Liberalism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.