Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jay[neX
]
I'm guessing you're for a bigger military and you want Canada to join the war in Iraq? You'd like to lose liberties to and have a "patriot-act" clone in Canada too? Cause that's Harper right there.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MetaMan
no its not, stop creating things up in your head.
|
ok, fact 1: Harper was for the war:
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.
Fact 2: He was supportive of the "star wars" missile defence system and is for increased military spending
June 1, 2004
OSHAWA - He is smooth. Very, very smooth. Stephen Harper released his party's defence policy yesterday (first in a flurry of policy drops this week) stressing the need to assert our sovereignty with a serious military force, chastizing the Liberals for years of neglect and avoiding any comment that might be construed as bellicose.
Without providing details, Harper suggests he would be more generous with the military than the Martin Liberals -- upgrading equipment on a more ambitious schedule, committing to an 80,000-strong force at some future date -- but nothing he said yesterday suggests he would embark on a radically different course.
Whatever he is saying now, Liberals hope more Canadians will be disturbed by those old quotes than mollified by Harper's more nuanced current approach. Their second line of attack is to insist Harper can't finance an expanded military without deep cuts to other spending -- including health.
It is a plausible argument and Harper is making a tactical error in not producing contrary evidence. (He says there's enough money to cover his priorities -- modest tax cuts, increased military spending -- without reducing spending on health. But if not health, what?) We can assume that culture, the CBC, any sponsorship-like spending will be given short shrift in a Conservative regime, but that magnitude of savings doesn't begin to cover the new military expenditures.
The only un-proven fact is the liberties issues - but if you're smart you'll figure it out. He's aligned with the U.S. and is far to the right