Is the Stephen Harper era over? YES. Canada elects Justin Trudeau.

[Wesley Mouch]

Throughout the cold war and, more recently, in response to Islamic terrorism, the US has shouldered much, too much, of the economic burdens of its allies including Canada. Health care and the other social bells and whistles provided their populations by these social democracies would have been unaffordable if these allies had had to pay for their own share of defense. Mr. Trudeau professes that he intends to improve US Canada relations yet two of his first moves were to cancel Canadian plans to buy f-35s and to end Canadian bombing of IS. Were I Canadian, I might applaud those actions but they do cut American jobs and add to the burdens of US taxpayers who will have to now also cover some of Canada's previous share of the war against IS. So congratulations Canada, you now have some more money to spend on Mr. Trudeaus's social agenda at the expense of US taxpayers.

Canada does enjoy a free-ride courtesy of the States in many ways. The Liberals argument is that they will spend on 'peacekeeping', which to my eyes seems only to provide support to the bullies AFTER they've attacked -- when they're perfectly happy to see the status quo enforced by the International Community.

[401don]

Throughout the cold war and, more recently, in response to Islamic terrorism, the US has shouldered much, too much, of the economic burdens of its allies including Canada. Health care and the other social bells and whistles provided their populations by these social democracies would have been unaffordable if these allies had had to pay for their own share of defense. Mr. Trudeau professes that he intends to improve US Canada relations yet two of his first moves were to cancel Canadian plans to buy f-35s and to end Canadian bombing of IS. Were I Canadian, I might applaud those actions but they do cut American jobs and add to the burdens of US taxpayers who will have to now also cover some of Canada's previous share of the war against IS. So congratulations Canada, you now have some more money to spend on Mr. Trudeaus's social agenda at the expense of US taxpayers.

Yeah if only ISIS would go away the U.S. would have nice roads, universal healthcare, a chicken in every pot and a gun in every holster.

[Canadian Visitor]

Throughout the cold war and, more recently, in response to Islamic terrorism, the US has shouldered much, too much, of the economic burdens of its allies including Canada. Health care and the other social bells and whistles provided their populations by these social democracies would have been unaffordable if these allies had had to pay for their own share of defense. Mr. Trudeau professes that he intends to improve US Canada relations yet two of his first moves were to cancel Canadian plans to buy f-35s and to end Canadian bombing of IS. Were I Canadian, I might applaud those actions but they do cut American jobs and add to the burdens of US taxpayers who will have to now also cover some of Canada's previous share of the war against IS. So congratulations Canada, you now have some more money to spend on Mr. Trudeaus's social agenda at the expense of US taxpayers.

What a load of......

With the greatest of respect, a little less Fox News, a little more cogent thought, please.

Canada was in WWI 2 years ahead of the US, same with WWII, we were also in Korea and we were no bit player either.

Yes, that was ages ago, now in more recent times, let's clarify, on our capability and our needs.

We have been invaded in our entire national history and pre-history, exactly once. [[by the U.S.)

We are surrounded by the US on two sides, and by 3 Oceans.

Who precisely are we defending against?

Now consider, [[the U.S.) spends more on its military than the next 17 nations combined. That includes Russia, France, Italy, China etc. etc.

Never mind the presence of nuclear weapons.

Exactly who is invading North America again?

Its not Russia, nor China, nor any other European power.....or right...there's no one.

Is terrorism a threat? Yes. Do tell me how you imagine an F-35 will help find the next would-be bomber at the Boston Marathon, or lone-gunman in Ottawa?

A tank anyone? No....an aircraft carrier! Hmmmm, how about good intel, and good police, and honestly a bit of luck......bingo!

Now that said..........do you imagine that Canada is somehow not spending on its own defence?

We have 90,000+ personnel in our military [[inc. Coast Guard), not including reserves. We have an airforce, navy, and army. We have subs, frigates, fighter jets and tanks.

Per capita that's vastly more than Britain, or India or Mexico.

No we're not a match for the U.S., neither is anyone else, nor could we afford that.

But then again, you can't afford that either [[you're in deficit and your Social Security isn't properly funded), and you don't need to fund it. Because if you're armed forces were cut 50%, the number of nations invading your soil would still be zero.

As for for the F-35, the issue is that it was a sole-source contract, that's its way over budget and way late. [[and Canada has been helping pay for its development costs)

We're likely to buy super hornets instead, still made in the U.S. Our air force flies F-18s, which while updated a few times, are now reaching 30+ years of age and do need replacing. F-35 is also single-engine design and not a particularly good choice for a nation w/the 2nd largest geography on the planet, the largest coastline, and a substantial arctic. We're also due to fund the replacement of all the Navy's Frigates and supply ships over the next few years.

Lastly....how did that whole invasion of Iraq go? Oh right...that created ISIS/ISIL and a whole load of other problems, created zero new democracies, set back women's rights in the area, eliminated zero WMDs and did nothing to improve US safety. It just killed 500,000+ locals, spawned new terrorist groups, squanders the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers who deserved better, and cost your treasury countless billions of dollars.

Syria is not going any better.

Don't you dare lecture the country that got to both WW's first, just because it doesn't waste its blood or treasure as liberally as your nation does. Wonderful country you have, but for the ill-informed FOX news viewership who imagine they are fit to comment on world affairs.

Sigh, Rant over.

[oladub]

This is original thinking so save your sophomoric Fox News hypothesis. I don't even watch much tv so even your guessing is wrong. I wasn't making reference to WWII either. Maybe Canada and Europe should pony up do their share of defending themselves or just take responsibility for not doing so. Maybe Canada will send all six of its ships [[joke) to the Arctic when Putin claims that territory. Maybe Europe will send its own ships and boys to keep the Persian Gulf open in the next round. Maybe Europe and Canada will keep the South China Sea open to shipping when China claims it and the US cuts its defense budget to Canadian levels. I'm ok with all that. After all, no one is actually threatening Canada's borders for right now as you pointed out. We are on the same side because I'm sick of covering for Canadians and Europeans with our boys blood and our taxes and dealing with smugness, per your fine example, about how you can afford more social benefits.

Thank you though for adding the information about the F-18 information, I hadn't read anything abaout Trudeau wanting f-18's. Also, I agree with you about Bush and Obama's misuses of our military in Iraq, Syria, and I would add Libya but that is a different matter.

[Canadian Visitor]

This is original thinking so save your sophomoric Fox News hypothesis. I don't even watch much tv so even your guessing is wrong. I wasn't making reference to WWII either. Maybe Canada and Europe should pony up do their share of defending themselves or just take responsibility for not doing so. Maybe Canada will send all six of its ships [[joke) to the Arctic when Putin claims that territory. Maybe Europe will send its own ships and boys to keep the Persian Gulf open in the next round. Maybe Europe and Canada will keep the South China Sea open to shipping when China claims it and the US cuts its defense budget to Canadian levels. I'm ok with all that. After all, no one is actually threatening Canada's borders for right now as you pointed out. We are on the same side because I'm sick of covering for Canadians and Europeans with our boys blood and our taxes and dealing with smugness, per your fine example, about how you can afford more social benefits.

Thank you though for adding the information about the F-18 information, I hadn't read anything abaout Trudeau wanting f-18's. Also, I agree with you about Bush and Obama's misuses of our military in Iraq, Syria, and I would add Libya but that is a different matter.

First off, I don't recall saying anything about our social benefits, one of your fellow Americans may have raised the subject, but not I.

You, however, are misinformed, I'll give the benefit of the doubt on smug.

Canada does meet its international obligations, beyond territorial defence.

We were in Afghanistan from 2003-2011 in full combat, and lost 158 lives and spent many billions on the operation. We then stayed in a training capacity thereafter till 2014.

We are currently deployed to Poland and Ukraine in support of their situation [[albeit in non-frontline rolls for the most part) with about 500 of our folks there.

We also have a naval vessel out in the Black Sea area keeping any eye on things.

We have had our navy in joint patrol w/NATO off the coast of Somalia keeping those shipping lanes protected from Pirating/terrorism.

We deployed to Haiti after their disastrous quake to help out as well.

No we are not in the South China Sea right now....however, since China needs our resources I find it unlikely they'll block our ships coming in; and why would they block their own ships going out?

We do more than our fair share, thanks.

As for thearctic, its Canadian fighter jets than patrol that space along w/our icebreakers, subs and our arctic special forces.

There are functionally zero U.S. troops on our soil doing that for us.

* functionally meaning Canada and the US are NORAD and as such there are US personnel in the Canadian HQ just as there are US troops under Canadian command in Colorado [[joint operation)

The idea that somehow we don't have forces or we use yours, or we don't go around the world is a bunch of ........hooey.

And we don't have just six jets, that's what we loaned out to one operation.

Your tone needs adjusting. To disgrace all the Canadian lives lost in battle by saying things that aren't true, because you're too lazy to log onto the Canadian Military's page and or even wikipedia to look up some of what's being done or has been is just ridiculous.

Also, we don't need mid-east shipping lanes open, we have more than enough of our own oil, gas, and everything else, thanks.

PS, you don't need them open either, the US is a net exporter of oil, and the largest amount of your imported product comes from Canada, along w/your natural gas, and some of your electricity, which btw, we sell you at very attractive rates.

The U.S. is a great neighbour, I have many friends and family in the U.S. and/or w/American ties. But there are a few of you who make emphatic statements not borne out by the facts.

[Wesley Mouch]

First off, I don't recall saying anything about our social benefits, one of your fellow Americans may have raised the subject, but not I.

You, however, are misinformed, I'll give the benefit of the doubt on smug.

Canada does meet its international obligations, beyond territorial defence.

We were in Afghanistan from 2003-2011 in full combat, and lost 158 lives and spent many billions on the operation. We then stayed in a training capacity thereafter till 2014.

We are currently deployed to Poland and Ukraine in support of their situation [[albeit in non-frontline rolls for the most part) with about 500 of our folks there.

We also have a naval vessel out in the Black Sea area keeping any eye on things.

We have had our navy in joint patrol w/NATO off the coast of Somalia keeping those shipping lanes protected from Pirating/terrorism.

We deployed to Haiti after their disastrous quake to help out as well.

No we are not in the South China Sea right now....however, since China needs our resources I find it unlikely they'll block our ships coming in; and why would they block their own ships going out?

We do more than our fair share, thanks.

As for thearctic, its Canadian fighter jets than patrol that space along w/our icebreakers, subs and our arctic special forces.

There are functionally zero U.S. troops on our soil doing that for us.

* functionally meaning Canada and the US are NORAD and as such there are US personnel in the Canadian HQ just as there are US troops under Canadian command in Colorado [[joint operation)

The idea that somehow we don't have forces or we use yours, or we don't go around the world is a bunch of ........hooey.

And we don't have just six jets, that's what we loaned out to one operation.

Your tone needs adjusting. To disgrace all the Canadian lives lost in battle by saying things that aren't true, because you're too lazy to log onto the Canadian Military's page and or even wikipedia to look up some of what's being done or has been is just ridiculous.

Also, we don't need mid-east shipping lanes open, we have more than enough of our own oil, gas, and everything else, thanks.

PS, you don't need them open either, the US is a net exporter of oil, and the largest amount of your imported product comes from Canada, along w/your natural gas, and some of your electricity, which btw, we sell you at very attractive rates.

The U.S. is a great neighbour, I have many friends and family in the U.S. and/or w/American ties. But there are a few of you who make emphatic statements not borne out by the facts.

Bravo. Well put. Canada has indeed been a friend to America and the world. Thank you.

The question today isn't whether Canada has stood up to its international obligations. The question is whether PM Designate Trudeau will continue to do so. Withdrawing from the fight against ISIS is of doubtful foreign affairs wisdom. Withdrawing from F35 purchases after being part of the program led by the US upon whom you lean for a lot of military support isn't a good sign. And then there's Isreal -- where Trudeau will almost certainly step back from Israel as she fights against entities who wish to obliterate her without remorse.

We expect policy differences among friends. Will he support justice & international engagement abroad, or prefer social programs at home. His commitment to deficit spending a la Krugman paired with low commodity prices will make for tough choices. PM Trudeau's actions will inform us.

[canuck]

What if Trump gets elected in 2017, our two heads of State would have last names beginning with TRU. They could make beautiful music together.

[oladub]

Your tone needs adjusting. To disgrace all the Canadian lives lost in battle by saying things that aren't true, because you're too lazy to log onto the Canadian Military's page and or even wikipedia to look up some of what's being done or has been is just ridiculous.

Also, we don't need mid-east shipping lanes open, we have more than enough of our own oil, gas, and everything else, thanks.

PS, you don't need them open either, the US is a net exporter of oil, and the largest amount of your imported product comes from Canada, along w/your natural gas, and some of your electricity, which btw, we sell you at very attractive rates.

The U.S. is a great neighbour, I have many friends and family in the U.S. and/or w/American ties. But there are a few of you who make emphatic statements not borne out by the facts.

The subject of this thread is Canada's new prime minister; not what Canada has done in the past but what Canada is doing under Trudeau. I mentioned the F-35s and pulling Canadian planes out of the IS conflict in reference to his claims that he was going to try to improve US Canadian relations. My take is that he is not off to a good start. You don't get the part that the sheer size of US military forces is still intimidating but maybe not so much the size of Canada's forces. Canadian forces are respected but relatively sparse. I am suggesting that Putin, for instance, has to consider Canada's allies as it makes moves in the arctic. Similarly, China would let Canadian bound ships through its claimed zone but you will have to ask permission. I hope Canada won't mind kowtowing to China's claims of sovereignty of a big hunk of the Pacific Ocean.

I think that it is you whose smarmy attitude needs adjusting. I just mentioned Trudeaus first moves and you began mentioning WWII and the cultural superiority of Canada. I really don't need to hear all that. During WWII, my father, 2 or 3 of his brothers, and one of his sisters were members of the RCAF and another brother is buried in France having fought and died in the Battle of Cannes as a member of the Canadian part of the 1st Special Service Force [[Devils' Brigade). I did not "disgrace all the Canadian lives lost in battle". Why would I? I suppose that's another one of your stupid throw away statements like suggesting I've been watching Fox News. I hope that your new Prime Minister isn't similarly such a jerk. My family might have done more for Canada than yours. But again, that topic has more to do with addressing your arrogance than the topic of this thread.

[aj3647]

So congratulations Canada, you now have some more money to spend on Mr. Trudeaus's social agenda at the expense of US taxpayers.

Yes, how DARE the Canadian electorate not place the American military-industrial complex at the forefront of their concerns when deciding who to vote for. How utterly selfish of them to decide based on what's best for their country, not ours. I'm sure you and your ideological compatriots will put Canada's concerns first and foremost when you cast your vote for the next U.S. President...

And as often offered up as an alternative to the inequalities of capitalism there persists a central power elite dictating who'll have what, how much and when -- while they themselves do what they want without constraint!

Yes, Canada is indeed an oppressive socialist hellhole straight out of George Orwell's 1984. An astute observation. Ditto with Western Europe, Japan, and Australia.

[oladub]

Yes, how DARE the Canadian electorate not place the American military-industrial complex at the forefront of their concerns when deciding who to vote for. How utterly selfish of them to decide based on what's best for their country, not ours. I'm sure you and your ideological compatriots will put Canada's concerns first and foremost when you cast your vote for the next U.S. President...

Your quote did not include my previous sentence, "Were I Canadian, I might applaud those actions but they do cut American jobs and add to the burdens of US taxpayers who will have to now also cover some of Canada's previous share of the war against IS." I did not criticize Canadians for voting for Mr. Trudeau or looking after their own interests. My comments were directed instead at Mr. Trudeau who claims he intends to improve US relations although two of his first actions as Prime Minister were adverse to Americans.

[Canadian Visitor]

The subject of this thread is Canada's new prime minister; not what Canada has done in the past but what Canada is doing under Trudeau. I mentioned the F-35s and pulling Canadian planes out of the IS conflict in reference to his claims that he was going to try to improve US Canadian relations. My take is that he is not off to a good start. You don't get the part that the sheer size of US military forces is still intimidating but maybe not so much the size of Canada's forces. Canadian forces are respected but relatively sparse. I am suggesting that Putin, for instance, has to consider Canada's allies as it makes moves in the arctic. Similarly, China would let Canadian bound ships through its claimed zone but you will have to ask permission. I hope Canada won't mind kowtowing to China's claims of sovereignty of a big hunk of the Pacific Ocean.

I think that it is you whose smarmy attitude needs adjusting. I just mentioned Trudeaus first moves and you began mentioning WWII and the cultural superiority of Canada. I really don't need to hear all that. During WWII, my father, 2 or 3 of his brothers, and one of his sisters were members of the RCAF and another brother is buried in France having fought and died in the Battle of Cannes as a member of the Canadian part of the 1st Special Service Force [[Devils' Brigade). I did not "disgrace all the Canadian lives lost in battle". Why would I? I suppose that's another one of your stupid throw away statements like suggesting I've been watching Fox News. I hope that your new Prime Minister isn't similarly such a jerk. My family might have done more for Canada than yours. But again, that topic has more to do with addressing your arrogance than the topic of this thread.

For the record, this is a quote of you.

We are on the same side because I'm sick of covering for Canadians and Europeans with our boys blood and our taxes and dealing with smugness, per your fine example, about how you can afford more social benefits.

Again, I never spoke of social benefits., nor as you noted in your most recent quote was I engaging in any cultural superiority, I simply said no such thing, period.

You can't seem to see how offensive what you've written is, nor how inaccurate.

If your parentage did in fact provide Canadian military service, that is to their credit, and I thank them for it. But I don't think their credit flows to the subsequent generation [[you), which seems more likely to start a war than fight it, or win it. That is not a U.S. reference, its specific to you.

If you're really a decent human being under it all, learn to apologize for causing offense first, then try to understand why, and learn something.

If you're unwilling to do the above, you're not a decent person.

In the absence of same, I won't engage w/you further, both because I couldn't embarrass you more than you've done yourself, and because Lowell is an eminently decent person who deserves better than to see this forum degenerate into pettiness and I don't wish to be the cause of that.

******

As for Mr. Trudeau's policies.

[[and I should point out I am not a member of his party, nor donor)

I did already note why the F-35 was an issue. Its not that Canada won't buy new combat aircraft, nor is it likely that it won't be American, though there are well made combat aircraft from other nations. Still, its rather likely the purchase will be from the U.S. and the only question is which model and which company.

The F-35 is single engine, a dubious choice for that reason alone when you have the 2nd largest territory on earth and only 2 bases that service the bulk of the airforce.

There are other issues, not to mention run-away costs, a non-competitive bidding process, and an aircraft that is SEVERAL years late.

Its probable, that like Australia, which also cancelled its F-35s we will end up ordering Hornets [[US-made, combat aircraft). As they are off-the-shelf and ready now.

But that decision will be taken in due course, and it should be added, the F-35 isn't precluded from a new tender, only that the existing order is nixed as there is a lot of sunk money and no working airplane yet [[its actually air-worthy, but weapons and technical systems remain much delayed)

*****

The decision on a role in Syria is straight-forward. We [[and you) are not winning. We can't win w/o a much larger commitment that includes ground-troops. Neither your nation, nor ours has the stomach for that.

Even worse, in the absence of staying there [[Syria) for the next 20+ years) the problems would recur the moment we left.

The promise was to extract us from a useless endeavour that won't defeat ISIS but instead empower it.

Except, even then, the Liberal included a concession to current U.S. policy, by supplying trainers for the rebel forces in lieu of our aircraft.

Hardly a hostile move.

Read the whole platform if you wish to critique it.

And consider the implications of action, beyond feel-good boosterism.

You risk the lives of American soldiers not for your security or global security, but for nothing much at all.

If you want to win against ISIS you're going to have to rebuild those regions completely on a scale comparable to the Marshall plan. I doubt you or most other folks could tolerate the timeline or the price tag.

That's not about anyone's cultural superiority. Its about your lack of knowledge of the region and the conflict and the consequences.

There is no proposal for net cut in defence spending in Canada or for reduced overseas rolls.

I'm not saying that wont' happen, but a new Canadian budget isn't due till Feb 2016, so let's wait and see. But there are no statements to that effect.

Also, he isn't yet the PM, just like your president, there is a transition period, he is the PM-designate. He will likely take office in about 3 weeks.

[Lowell]

Umm... can we fade to the BIG picture and celebrate that as of this year we have been at peace between our two great and wonderful democracies for 200 years.

[aj3647]

Your quote did not include my previous sentence, "Were I Canadian, I might applaud those actions but they do cut American jobs and add to the burdens of US taxpayers who will have to now also cover some of Canada's previous share of the war against IS." I did not criticize Canadians for voting for Mr. Trudeau or looking after their own interests. My comments were directed instead at Mr. Trudeau who claims he intends to improve US relations although two of his first actions as Prime Minister were adverse to Americans.

Adverse to you maybe, since you seem to have a singular view of the situation that focuses solely on how Canada can be a tool to enrich the U.S. military-industrial complex. I doubt if you will find a seismic shift in the American public's view of Canada as a result of Mr. Trudeau's election. As has already been pointed out, Canada's cancellation of the F-35 will almost certainly lead them to buying F/A-18 Super Hornets instead, so they'll be giving Canadian taxpayer money by the hundreds of millions to Boeing instead of Lockheed Martin. Boo hoo. As for sorties against the Islamic State in Syria, I'm not aware of even a single U.S. fatality inflicted in that campaign, so you can save the whole dramatic "our boys' blood" rhetoric.

[oladub]

Adverse to you maybe, since you seem to have a singular view of the situation that focuses solely on how Canada can be a tool to enrich the U.S. military-industrial complex. I doubt if you will find a seismic shift in the American public's view of Canada as a result of Mr. Trudeau's election. As has already been pointed out, Canada's cancellation of the F-35 will almost certainly lead them to buying F/A-18 Super Hornets instead, so they'll be giving Canadian taxpayer money by the hundreds of millions to Boeing instead of Lockheed Martin. Boo hoo. As for sorties against the Islamic State in Syria, I'm not aware of even a single U.S. fatality inflicted in that campaign, so you can save the whole dramatic "our boys' blood" rhetoric.

aj, Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I already brought to your attention part of my quote you continue to ignore: "Were I Canadian, I might applaud those actions but they do cut American jobs and add to the burdens of US taxpayers who will have to now also cover some of Canada's previous share of the war against IS." How that perspective presents a "singular view of the situation that focuses solely on how Canada can be a tool to enrich the U.S. military-industrial complex" I don't know. Also, I did not point out that "Canada's cancellation of the F-35 will almost certainly lead them to buying F/A-18 Super Hornets." I have no idea if Trudeau will buy F-18's. I was humoring Canadian Visitor who said he would prefer the purchase of F-18's and insinuated that Mr. Trudeau would too. I am unaware of any legislation by the Trudeau government to make an F-18 purchase. Also, I never limited my concern for "our boys" to dropping bombs on IS. Please try not to distort. The US however has suffered more than its share of casualties trying to suppress Al Queda and the Taliban and keeping the Persian Gulf open for other beneficiaries of world commerce. You might not care about American GI's and taxpayers but I do.

Again, my point was that despite Mr. Trudeau's claim that he wanted to improve US relations, he began his tenancy by doing two things that hurt regular Americans. Maybe Mr. Trudeau was referring to getting along with Obama better than did Harper. I expect that to be the case.

[oladub]

Umm... can we fade to the BIG picture and celebrate that as of this year we have been at peace between our two great and wonderful democracies for 200 years.

OK, I'll do my part. Canada's a nice place. I chose to spend my two vacations there this summer. Most of my relatives live there. If Canadians want to elect another Trudeau or Argentinians want to elect another Peron, the voter is always right as Mr. Harper pointed out. I'm much more concerned about the US voting for another Bush or Clinton. Nepotism seldom yields good results.

[canuck]

aj, Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I already brought to your attention part of my quote you continue to ignore: "Were I Canadian, I might applaud those actions but they do cut American jobs and add to the burdens of US taxpayers who will have to now also cover some of Canada's previous share of the war against IS." How that perspective presents a "singular view of the situation that focuses solely on how Canada can be a tool to enrich the U.S. military-industrial complex" I don't know. Also, I did not point out that "Canada's cancellation of the F-35 will almost certainly lead them to buying F/A-18 Super Hornets." I have no idea if Trudeau will buy F-18's. I was humoring Canadian Visitor who said he would prefer the purchase of F-18's and insinuated that Mr. Trudeau would too. I am unaware of any legislation by the Trudeau government to make an F-18 purchase. Also, I never limited my concern for "our boys" to dropping bombs on IS. Please try not to distort. The US however has suffered more than its share of casualties trying to suppress Al Queda and the Taliban and keeping the Persian Gulf open for other beneficiaries of world commerce. You might not care about American GI's and taxpayers but I do.

Again, my point was that despite Mr. Trudeau's claim that he wanted to improve US relations, he began his tenancy by doing two things that hurt regular Americans. Maybe Mr. Trudeau was referring to getting along with Obama better than did Harper. I expect that to be the case.

Where does nixing the F35 program hurt Americans? Tit for Tat, the Keystone agreement fell through on Obama's watch but I am not going to cry fowl over US policy and call it vindictive. heck, a lot of Canadians are not warm to the idea of Big Oil Anything getting its way. From your tone you sound more preoccupied by the sort of Corporate Welfare endemic to all the wealthy countries that dwarfs anything destined to help the poorer citizens of your country.

Also, in WW1, there were at least thirty thousand Americans joining the Canadian Forces before the US entered the war. A whole bunch did the same in WW2. There were 6000 US citizens in the RCAF and 10,000 in the Canadian Army. Don't know about the Navy personnel. Canadians numbered 26,000 in the US armed Forces in the Second World War.

In the Vietnam era, at least 30,000 draft dodgers or deserters left the US for Canada, and 30,000 of Canadians fought in South East Asia during that time under the US Flag. Either way, it is hard to judge who did right and who did wrong when you think of what a mess that turned out to be. Meanwhile, after all that blood spilled, Vietnam is a more or less open-market economy with a communist government just as corrupt as the old Colonial one and very much like China's.

Go figgyer.

[Wesley Mouch]

OK, I'll do my part. Canada's a nice place. I chose to spend my two vacations there this summer. Most of my relatives live there. If Canadians want to elect another Trudeau or Argentinians want to elect another Peron, the voter is always right as Mr. Harper pointed out. I'm much more concerned about the US voting for another Bush or Clinton. Nepotism seldom yields good results.

True, but we also aren't getting such good results from newcomers like Obama either -- unless you're a Democrat who's a fan of big insurance getting their way on healthcare and in favor of the TPP.

There's a reason Trump's doing well. The public wants someone who doesn't talk like a machine. They like someone who doesn't act like a politician. Unfortunately, they also are becoming brats who must have their way on each and every issue dear to them. No Democrat can be behind limiting immigration. No Republican can support Obamacare. There are reasonable, moderate positions out there. They're just not popular. So the candidates run to the edges.

The other trend is that the public wants someone to promise them the moon. Trudeau did that. Tax breaks for the 'middle class' -- run a deficit to rebuild the public service -- save home mail delivery -- affordable housing and education -- invest in the military [[just not the F35). A chicken in every pot.

Unfortunately, I fear that Canada isn't leading, but is following the US. Dynasties are at least easy to understand. This election seemed to be more about 'Stop Harper' than anything else. Feels familiar. They're copying the USA.

[EastsideAl]

Meanwhile, despite the big Liberal sweep, Windsor and Essex County go NDP, including ousting an incumbent Conservative MP.

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-ne...d-essex-county

[oladub]

Where does nixing the F35 program hurt Americans? Tit for Tat, the Keystone agreement fell through on Obama's watch but I am not going to cry fowl over US policy and call it vindictive. heck, a lot of Canadians are not warm to the idea of Big Oil Anything getting its way. From your tone you sound more preoccupied by the sort of Corporate Welfare endemic to all the wealthy countries that dwarfs anything destined to help the poorer citizens of your country.

Also, in WW1, there were at least thirty thousand Americans joining the Canadian Forces before the US entered the war. A whole bunch did the same in WW2. There were 6000 US citizens in the RCAF and 10,000 in the Canadian Army. Don't know about the Navy personnel. Canadians numbered 26,000 in the US armed Forces in the Second World War.

In the Vietnam era, at least 30,000 draft dodgers or deserters left the US for Canada, and 30,000 of Canadians fought in South East Asia during that time under the US Flag. Either way, it is hard to judge who did right and who did wrong when you think of what a mess that turned out to be. Meanwhile, after all that blood spilled, Vietnam is a more or less open-market economy with a communist government just as corrupt as the old Colonial one and very much like China's.

Go figgyer.

I answered your first question and only mentioned US workers and taxpayers in my post #50. You are not the first to bring up a litany of worthy Canadian contributions either but they remain irrelevant to my point that two of Mr. Trudeaus' first acts as Prime Minister do not square with his expressed intent to improve US Canadian relations. Perhaps you could fill us in on what new initiatives Mr. Trudeaus has proposed since becoming Prime Minister that offset the two things I mentioned and have improved US relations relative to the policies of Mr. Harper.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

If Canada is pulling back a bit from Mid East intervention, I'd say congratulations to them. For hundreds of years Western meddling has done nothing but make things worse, and continues to do so.

[canuck]

True, but we also aren't getting such good results from newcomers like Obama either -- unless you're a Democrat who's a fan of big insurance getting their way on healthcare and in favor of the TPP.

There's a reason Trump's doing well. The public wants someone who doesn't talk like a machine. They like someone who doesn't act like a politician. Unfortunately, they also are becoming brats who must have their way on each and every issue dear to them. No Democrat can be behind limiting immigration. No Republican can support Obamacare. There are reasonable, moderate positions out there. They're just not popular. So the candidates run to the edges.

The other trend is that the public wants someone to promise them the moon. Trudeau did that. Tax breaks for the 'middle class' -- run a deficit to rebuild the public service -- save home mail delivery -- affordable housing and education -- invest in the military [[just not the F35). A chicken in every pot.

Unfortunately, I fear that Canada isn't leading, but is following the US. Dynasties are at least easy to understand. This election seemed to be more about 'Stop Harper' than anything else. Feels familiar. They're copying the USA.

I think that you are right about the emulation part. I also think that elections and the political process is becoming a variant of Reality TV. Trump understands that, he has honed his skills watching the reactions of all those who fawn in the face of power and celebrity. He has slashed contestants hard and knows how to reap from harshness. Bravo. What is the next step.

[canuck]

I answered your first question and only mentioned US workers and taxpayers in my post #50. You are not the first to bring up a litany of worthy Canadian contributions either but they remain irrelevant to my point that two of Mr. Trudeaus' first acts as Prime Minister do not square with his expressed intent to improve US Canadian relations. Perhaps you could fill us in on what new initiatives Mr. Trudeaus has proposed since becoming Prime Minister that offset the two things I mentioned and have improved US relations relative to the policies of Mr. Harper.

You haven't convinced me that the nixing of F35 is an affront to the USA.

[aj3647]

You haven't convinced me that the nixing of F35 is an affront to the USA.

It's an affront to him, not the United States. I'm an American too and I say good for you guys on both accounts [[cancelling the F-35 purchase and withdrawing from the bombing campaign). He hasn't provided any evidence that either a majority of the American public nor the Obama Administration themselves view Trudeau as "damaging" U.S.-Canadian relations, because such evidence doesn't exist. He CERTAINLY has no basis to claim that Trudeau is, and I quote, "hurting regular Americans."

If your parentage did in fact provide Canadian military service, that is to their credit, and I thank them for it. But I don't think their credit flows to the subsequent generation [[you), which seems more likely to start a war than fight it, or win it. That is not a U.S. reference, its specific to you.

You'll find that's a common tactic among American conservatives who didn't put on a uniform. They'll rest their laurels on what their ancestors did. "I've got Canadian cred and therefore nothing I say can be offensive towards Canada's military history because my granddad did blah blah blah for Canada during WWII!" Well...you ain't your grandfather now are ya? People like that get no "patriot" credit from me, nor do the deeds of their forefathers somehow transfer to them through the transitive properties of DNA.

For those of us who wear the uniform, we know armchair cowboys when we see them. I just laugh at internet fools who think they're military experts because they read some military blogs or websites or whatever.

[oladub]

You haven't convinced me that the nixing of F35 is an affront to the USA.

You have to convince me that Mr. Trudeau's backing out of a contract negotiation to purchase a US built product is good for US workers who might consequently be out of a job.

[canuck]

You have to convince me that Mr. Trudeau's backing out of a contract negotiation to purchase a US built product is good for US workers who might consequently be out of a job.

Yes well, reductio ad absurdum aside, how does a Canadian government contract with an American corporation become an attack on US citizens? Because the contract is for military equipment? Give me a little more gravy on your thought processes.