Canadians should DEMAND proper representation from their Govt.

Even if it is now a neoConservative Canada, how dare our new Defence Minister - former lobbyist and full on supporter for the growth of the canadian military industrial economy for private profit - subvert my right to proper representation and suggest that a vote is not necessary?

Recent opinion polls have suggested public support for the mission is low, but Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has said the mission is vital. He rejected the idea of a vote in Parliament over whether to continue the mission.

full article (inserted link 02 03 06)

Excuse me, but Canadians do not want to participate in this war.

A vote MUST be had if we're to continue to play along with the notion that we are represented by our elected officials.

Contact your MP today and demand a parliamentary vote to determine whether Canada has a mandate for war!

using your postal code

by the name of your Member of Parliament

(the conservatives apparently don't think you need to contact them all yet - mine's not even updated with any contact info yet. Oh boy will they enjoy my call)


michael the tubthumper said...

well, if it is any consolation i shouted at the old PM when he was here in the summer but between the fences the fields and the police i am fairly certain he didn't hear me

Amelopsis said...

we started our involvement on humanitarian basis, now we've taken over the show for the next year and it's never been debated or voted on in parliament! I must be calmer when I speak to my MP - if I spoke with him right now I'd lose my mind and he'd no doubt call on someone to perform an exorcism.

My post could've been much better too, but I'm just not so very lucid right now.

The Intolerant One said...

My understanding of the situation is that it is not war.

Canadian solidiers, in conjuction with several other countries(coalition), are on a "mission". With the encouraged approval of the Afghanistan government to establish democracy.

They will be heading into "volatile" zones and are supposed to weed out remaining Al quaida.

I understand that means they will most likely be killing them as they know they will not get any respect from those insurgents. But this, from what I understand is not a declaration of war.

Canada, under the Liberal government, agreed to "fight" the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. This is one more step in the process to establishing that democracy. The Conservatives are following up what the Liberals began. Are they not?

I do not believe, personally, that we should have a vote on this. This is why, as you say, they are our elected reps. So they can make the decisions.

There are many issue's Canadians would have liked to vote on freely (same sex marriage, abortion, captial punishment, etc.) but then we all might as well have a 30 million seat parliament. Our leaders do not always make the popular decisions but they are elected and we have to allow them to govern.

Side question: What exactly is a neo conservative?

Youngfox said...

“My understanding of the situation is that it is not war.”

It would appear then that you do not have an understanding of the situation.
The lickspittle Canadian media has even gotten around to admitting that we are at war. Sure the fake “Liberals” lied us into America’s occupation by misrepresenting the Canadian occupation as “peacekeeping” but that fallacy could not be maintained as Canadian began kicking in doors, bagging heads and handing people over to the Americans for torture.

We are officially an adjunct of “Operation Enduring Freedom” which is an invasion and occupation. The puppet government installed by the Americans has even asked foreign troops to leave but that gets zero media play.
We answer to the Americans no matter how many token commands are exchanged. We are doing their imperialist dirty work.

Canadians (sane ones anyway) do not support our flag being integrated into Bush/Cheney’s imperialist foreign policy but here we are.

No mandate, no debate, no vote just war.
We are at war I.O. and all the weasel talk and tap dancing around the topic does not change that. Calling it “a mission” is just more obfuscation and misdirection.
The body bags say war. Our American masters over there say war.
Should there be a parliamentary vote regarding sending troops overseas to dictate lifestyle to other countries at gunpoint? ABSOLUTELY!
Such a radical departure from our traditional history as peacekeepers MUST be debated.

I don’t see why the Neocons won’t facilitate a vote because the fake “liberal” lapdogs won’t oppose it – right wing shitlick Billy Graham started us down the road to arrogant imperialism and despite public opinion this multi-million dollar appeasement to the Bush/Cheney Cartel will stand as a black eye on our international reputation.

Please don’t ask Amelopsis to waste her time spoon feeding word meanings to you when you can very easily look them up for yourself.
In fact I believe that you goddamn well know what a Neocon is because you appear to be one. If you don’t like the descriptive being applied to you or your hero Big Stevie Harper why don’t you present some reasons why it shouldn’t be?

The Intolerant One said...


"It would appear then that you do not have an understanding of the situation."

It would appear I do not have "your" understanding. I guess that makes you right and me wrong.

" Canadian media has even gotten around to admitting that we are at war"

Not all of them. This is why I made my statement in the first place. Not everybody is seeing this as war. I am actually not saying either way I am saying "show me" how that is as I am not yet convinced.

"Canadians (sane ones anyway) do not support our flag being integrated into Bush/Cheney’s imperialist foreign policy"

So once again those who disagree with your position are insane!? A little self righteous don't you think?

"Please don’t ask Amelopsis to waste her time spoon feeding word meanings to you when you can very easily look them up for yourself."

neocon. is not found in the dictionary (at least my webster's version). Different website's seem to have their own definitions and I have only "swung" to the right over the last decade so I really am not familiar with it's meaning. Yes I have heard the term but I have never, until now, actually asked anyone. The question is very sincere. If it simply means conservative then no need to explain but what is "neo"?

The reason I ask Ampleposis is because she has always responded in a genuine manner. Obviuously her and I do not agree on much but she is a "lefty" who I can dialogue with respectfully. I have already learned from some of her insight's.

Who knows, she may also have her own definition of neocon but I would like to hear it from her perspective.

As I said, I do not agree with her on many things but I respect her input. But thanks for doing your best to answer for her. ;)

Youngfox said...

I would "do my best" If I thought you were sincere.
I rapped with Amelopsis and she thinks you are.
I think you're playing games but we differ on that point.
I should not use her website to troll hunt so out of respect for her I will withdraw from responding to your other "replies".
Your dictionary might be out of date but ya ever heard of a little thing called Google?

The Intolerant One said...


Here is something you need to understand about me.

I "used to" hold more left leaning views. I "used" to vote NDP and one time I even (gasp!) voted Liberal.

When I actually started to pay attention to politics more closely I realised that I was more Conservative then any of the above. Yet I was not "afraid" to vote against them in 1993 when I was not happy with the way the government was running the country. Just like I was not afraid to vote out "corruption, scandal, and culture of entitlement" If the Conservatives drop the ball as government, I may still hold my conservative views but I would not hesitate to vote them out again. I consider myself mature enough to hear all options as a Canadian voter.

I do not hold any affiliation/membership with any political party. And there is no party out there who could completely represent my personal views and convictions.

When I speak/blog I am told my views are more conservative. I speak the truth when I say you are only the second individual who has referred to me as a "neo". Although I believe the first person was only kidding when they called me that.

As I said, I have heard the term but have never really paid it much attention. You said I appear to be one. Now I am more inclined to know.

Sure I can google it and I will(now)since it seems to be causing "you" to be in such an uproar about it. But I can't have dialogue with a definition.

As far "playing games" is concerned...this baffles me. I do not understand your statement. How does this benefit me? What do I gain by playing "head games" with Amelopsis?

I never saw asking the question as a big deal. Sincerely, are you paranoid?


I leave the decision to respond in your court. It is really no big deal. I appreciate what you have to say but understand should you choose to stay out of this one.

Mickey Z. said...

Intolerant, on your blog you declare: "You might say that I am at war with myself on a continual basis." Don't look at it as war. My understanding of the situation is that you're actually on a "mission."

Youngfox said...

Mickey Z your a million dollars! (That's a million and a quarter Canadian) Love ya, babe!

Oh I.O. ,

Why do you right wingers always tell everybody what they "need" to understand.
I have already said I will not continue with you on this blog out of respect for my dear friend yet you just keep on baiting in that wonderful passive aggressive way.

I will reiterate that I will take a pass. If you want a confrontation see me on one of the two other blogs I write on.
Good luck with your “wa… uh “mission”.
Peace OUT

Youngfox said...

er... I meant "You're" above Mick I am always doing that with were and where, your and your're, their and there.

Its wurd prosessors, they endumben yer riting scills.

Amelopsis said...

Intolerant One,
The following is entirely my opinion, the term itself is no doubt largely in dispute and likely means different things specifically to different people.
That said:
Neoconservativism embodies all the ideals required for the furtherance of a global Pax Americana. It's ranks are made up of ultra capitalists for whom the corporation is all, right wingers who believe that for the US might makes right, and their ends are greatly furthered by the support of evangelical christian end-time groups and zionist groups who support Israel at all costs.
These ideals are held above all else, and social values be damned. The Project for the New American Century has planned and manipulated and funded the furtherance of these neoconservative ideals and actively works to promote them.
Methods of advancing the goal of the Pax Americana are forwarded by both legitimate legal means, and subversive illegitimate and illegal means.

So, the difference is largely between big C and little c conservative. Here in Canada it's the same.

I think that before you continue to support a conservative gov't here perhaps it might be eye opening to become a little better informed about the nuances of the larger picture involving foreign policy - both ours and that of the US; because Stephen Harper is all about bringing us closer to the US and bringing our own foreign policies more in synch with those of the US.

I for one want no part of it and I believe that a Canada that moves in this direction moves away from the values of the majority of its citizens.

'Culture of Entitlement' ... put that into perspective: a scandalous plundering of some tax dollars which I certainly don't defend - but holy moly - it wasn't going towards arms or killing people.
Neoconservatives have a much more grandiose view of a 'Culture of Entitlement' to "more" everything for the west, including Canada and taken at the expense of other sovereign nations just because we have the might to bully them into it.
No one nation should be policing the world.
If we agree that the UN is not functioning as it should, lets fix it and move on from there. Lets not further empower a nation who's only interest in spreading democracy is to embiggen its own image while a few priviledge within the military industrial corporate world fleece the tax coffers in a manner that makes the Quebec advertising fiasco money look like walking around money.

I hope that answers your question. My answer is lacking in many ways, but I've tried to lay out the basics.
I won't provide the direct link, but check newamericancentury.org and look at its list of founding members and its mission statement. I find it chilling, to say the least.

Keir said...

War or not (I would say yes it is but that's just what I would call any state-sponsored military mission to occupy and kill) I think the issue here is democracy. The simple fact that there's a debate on the issue of whether people should have the right to vote on the issue reveals everything. That previous issues---as I.O. says, same-sex marriage, capital punishment etc---have been denied more directly democratic resolutions does not mean much here. A 30 million-seat parliament is actually a good idea.

Focus, people. What is at stake here? Specifically, Canada's taking part in the US adventure in the "supreme crime" of aggression. But more generally: whether or not individuals should take a greater part in important decisions. A very sorry misconception of democracy on your part Intolerant One is that "leaders" should be "allowed" to govern. No. That's late-term post-industrial soma-induced fascism. "Leaders" should be required to adhere to the will of their bosses: me, you, Amelopsis, and the rest of us not on some lobbyists payroll.

The Intolerant One said...

Mickey Z.:

Touche! Although I denote your sarcasm your comment gave me a good laugh.


With the sincerest respect:

"Why do you right wingers always tell everybody what they "need" to understand."

Because often "assumptions" are made. Like asking a sincere question and ending up on the conspiracy list of "playing games".

"you just keep on baiting in that wonderful passive aggressive way."

Uuuugggghhh! I asked one question. I am NOT looking for confrontation and I never was. I am looking for a response. Do you not understand that yet?


Thank you! That was all I wanted from you was an answer and a little bit of understanding on how the "left" percieves things. I may not see eye to eye on many issues that you blog about but I want to know more about why you and your commenter's see things the way that you do.

For the record I took Youngfox's advice and checked out a site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States). There was alot of reading there and I am going back to re-visit this site. Without going thru it all I did notice one discrepancy with "neos" as compared to our Canadian government. "Neos" want bigger government while Canadian Conservatives would like smaller.

Although you found your answer lacking I did find your response informing. I thank you again for taking the time to respond. I am now on a journey of my own...am I a "neo"conservative or just a conservative? I found in some parts of your response that certain description's were me and others were not so now I am going to look deeper. From what I read on the site I visited and what you have shared I am wagering a guess that I am more "just" conservative. But I guess it depends on each individual issue.


" A very sorry misconception of democracy on your part Intolerant One is that "leaders" should be "allowed" to govern."

I do stand by my original statement but I believe it has been misunderstood. On the one hand we elect leaders to govern so we can carry on our daily routines and they take care of the country. That is the reason we elect them. To represent us.

Yet I also feel/agree with your further comment:

" "Leaders" should be required to adhere to the will of their bosses: me, you, Amelopsis, and the rest of us..."

But I may not be in full agreement if what you mean is they should adhere on "every" issue. You and I do not have time to deal with these things while trying to maintain a job, go to school, raise a family, etc. As leaders we have to allow them to govern without our constant input but with "something" in place that still keeps them accountable to their boss's. You and I. Do you see the angle I am coming from?

Amelopsis said...

I.O., yes our elected officials need to get on with day to day affairs with the mandate of having been elected; however taking our nation abroad to bear arms in this manner under US direction is hardly a day to day affair and it's insulting to every taxpayer that our nation has done so without a proper address and debate in Parliament. It's a travesty far worse than squandered tax dollars. As Keir points out they are beholden to us and to suggest that a topic which most Canadians agree upon being the wrong course of action need not be discussed because we don't understand it is a reprehensible attitude and a patriarchal one which is neither wanted nor appreciated.

Keir said...

I suppose everyone posting and reading here agrees on one thing: that the world and how it's run is fully screwed up. One source of the problem is a lack of involvement in political and social and economic decision making. The so-called advanced democracies are falling apart because the people are encouraged to be disengaged. Intolerant One I see where you're coming from but I disagree: we must "deal with these things" while maintaining our lives, because it's lives that are at stake. Most often, jobs and school are diversions from civic participation.

The Intolerant One said...


If it is one area we MAY find common ground on that would be that the only remaining democratic freedom we have these days is our right to vote.

" that the world and how it's run is fully screwed up"

Although our respective differences might disagree as to the "Why it is" you are correct about us all agreeing that the bottom line is that it still just is.


On a lighter note (I hope?) I was sharing this whole "Neo" story with a co-worker/conservative and friend whose input I value. I asked him if he felt I was a "Neo". He said no I was not.

I responded "OK then I am just a conservative"

To which he said "No you are a pseudo conservative."

Great! More confusing subtitles I thought. He explained that although I held socially conservative views I also hold views that favour the labourer. He said I fight for the underdog.

Any thoughts? anyone ever heard of the term?

I think I may just have an open question forum on my sight where anyone can ask me anything regarding my views on social/economic/foreign policy and then I'll let them decide which catergory I fit in. That is...if there is one for me.

I think I would just like to go back to being "classified" as a "person" with an opinion. Not one that has to catergorised or necesarrily has to be agreed with, just respected as my own.

I appreciate the input you people have offered.

Amelopsis said...

Individually - I think it's less important how you or others might classify one's self (unless of course there is a passionate desire to do so.)

Far more relevant, is who you support with your vote and how well you understand all of their policies.

I think it would be far more productive (in this instance & context of the labelling discussion) to worry less about yourself, and more about the political party to which you've lent your support.