Not long into the Harper mandate, it was evident that the “phoney war” was on. The Tories would repeatedly throw down the election gauntlet and the Dion Liberals would blink, and blink and blink again.
The Conservatives were generous in identifying legislation as matters of confidence and Canada was almost perpetually on the brink of a federal election.
Liberal parliamentary contortions in the House of Commons have kept the Harper Conservative government alive longer than many expected. An outside look at the pattern of behaviour might lead one to conclude that the Conservatives have a strong upper hand.
A look at the polling, however, shows a political reality different from the dynamic in the House of Commons.
The Nanos Research/Sun Media federal political tracking has consistently shown the Conservatives and the Liberals in a tight race. Harper does have an advantage as to who Canadians think would make the best PM but a significant number of Canadians are parking with unsure and none of the above.
Considering the Conservatives have thrown everything including the kitchen sink at the Liberals and they are still mired in a dead heat must make one pause. If attacks ads, tax cuts, and being recognized as a competent and a solid government by average Canadians isn’t enough to win support for the Conservatives, what will?
It would seem that the Conservatives have still not shed the attitude or tone of an opposition party. They have been masterful in their daily tactics and attacks but more than two years into their mandate, the average Canadian would likely be hard pressed to describe what a Stephen Harper Canada would look like in ten years.
What seems to be missing is the ability to pull those policy threads together into a politically consumable, positive and succinct vision for Canada. Until that emerges, even with the tough election talk, the Conservatives going into an election will be vulnerable. Polling during the last election showed that mistrust of the Liberals propelled the Conservatives into power but in the next federal election the Conservatives will have a record to defend.
Also of note, in the province of Quebec where the mistrust of the Liberals was most intense, the Conservatives made a breakthrough. However, this fall season may not necessarily bring fair political weather for the Harper government. If the Bernier affair flares up in the fall in committee, it may spell trouble for the Tories in Quebec. Add the Elections Canada campaign spending investigation and the Cadman tapes to the mix and there are many fires for Harper to fight.
One advantage Harper does have is the current political narrative on Liberal Leader Stephane Dion. The polls have Dion trailing Harper personally, the Conservatives have been relentless in their attacks and the Green Shift plan has not yet yielded a bounce in the polls.
Even for Canadians who are open to the environmental message, the Green Shift sounds very much like a tax plan. It’s not surprising the Conservatives have gone on the tax attack and undermined the ability of the Dion Liberals to launch an aspirational environmental message.
Because a sense of urgency has not been conveyed to voters, staking Liberal fortunes on the environment as an election winner is a risky strategy.
So - there you have it. Both Harper and Dion face greater risks than their rhetoric suggests. The phoney war and tough talk will continue, but a reasoned quiet look at the numbers tells a different story.
What do you think?
Cheers,
NJN
Remember to rate the views of others - to allow us to recognize the opinion leaders in our national conversation.
Individuals with the top ratings make it to Nik’s Leaderboard.
RSS feed
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
To sound like a broken record, elections are LOST and rarely won. So it is up to... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 21 Jul 05:53
I must agree with Nik on the present situation as it present it self.As a Conser... more
Jan from Whitby (Ontario) 21 Jul 06:51
It is easy to jump on board and criticize Harper and the Conservative government... more
hollinm (Saskatchewan) 21 Jul 08:11
Larryl and TPQ------I believe I can answer you both as your themes are similar.A... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 21 Jul 19:04
Actually - I think most people just don't check this site much any more. :) Rec... more
Foxer (British Columbia) 12 Aug 15:18
Tom Good this is a very good commentary, you have put it very clearly. ... more
Jan from Whitby (Ontario) 21 Jul 06:53
Comments
dbeauvais
It's only july and Hopefully Dion and company can explain the Green shift a bit better before the house resumes.It's a complicated plan on the surface but if delivered strongly enough and correctly this thing will fly and fly well. My sense on the street is that many people are ready to make some sort of commitment to climate change.After a visit to rural ontario for two weeks I sense also that people are a bit bewildered with the harper government, and quite frankly a little worried. It seems some think that the Liberals may not been as bad after all in the roll of the Devil we knew as opposed to the devil we didn't. After two years of Harper people are still not able to firmly stand behind this guy and I think for very good reason.
[updated Mon Jul 21 02:28:34 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 02:28
35 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tom Good
To sound like a broken record, elections are LOST and rarely won. So it is up to Harper to lose and how is he going to do that???? I would suggest on the broad "look", the Conservatives have painted themselves as rather self-righteous while not recognizing the diversity that makes up Canada. I even wonder, when the Conservative percentages do not move up, if this government is truely Conservative and representing the traditional values of the broader Conservative base. To govern for any length of time, the conservatives have to govern as liberal-Conservatives but they are giving different signals that are not prompting the broarder electorate of Canada to rally "to the cause". Nik, you suggest the changing climate in Quebec, Elections Canada case, Cadman case and I would add the Order of Canada for Morgentaler and the indifference to the plight of Canadians abroad with the Brenda Martins case and now Omar Khadr imprisonment in the infamous Guantanamo Bay.
The major energy of this government seems to be directed to winning power and holding power and almost not listening to parliament. The rationale of Conservatism has always been limited government, lower taxes and defending personal liberties for ALL------some have received a good first step but have the conservatives adopted a major goal to destroy the Liberals, polarize the electorate and hoping they will end up with a larger share come the election in 15 months time ? I would say that has great "backfire" potential. In BC we have a government claiming the Liberal colours and name but they are Conservative. In Ottawa, we have a government claiming the Conservative colours and name but are they something else ????
I believe the Conservatives must show they can properly manage big government and the nonsense in the House suggests something is to be desired. They must address their traditional roots of small business and not allow the wealthy to "buy" government, they must recognize the diversity in their own party and within the country of Canada. They stand for family values without dredging up contentious social issues, they should stand for health care, address the tax code, education and they should stand for principle and not how to defeat the Liberals. I am not holding my breath ! ! !
[updated Mon Jul 21 05:53:31 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 05:53
154 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Jan from Whitby
Tom Good this is a very good commentary, you have put it very clearly.
[updated Mon Jul 21 06:53:25 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 06:53
larryl
tom.I agree with most of your comments but take exception with "the rationale has always been limited government , lower taxes and defending personal liberties". Could someone please point out what the Conservatives have done to reduce government involvement in our lives. They talk about that a lot but do little when they have the opportunity. Nine years of huge majorities freed corporations to do whatever they desired. The best example of that is the banks which have been making obscene profits since Lyin Brain's changes to the bank act. The claim they are for lower taxes is a joke. Checking where government revenues come from shows personal income taxes accounts for much more than corporate taxes.They are and always have been the party of corporate Canada.The last two budgets should be proof enough that they are better than the Liberals at spending . The excuse that their huge deficits of the past were all the fault of the previous government can no longer be claimed.The former members of the reform party will ,if Harper ever gets a majority, bring back to the fore debate on gay rights and a woman's right to choose . The action of the foreign affairs even after Bernier shows the Conservatives attitude toward individual liberty is that you had better not want help from your government because you won't get it. If one tries to figure out their motives they would see what their agenda is. Less government or no government at all would see the world controlled by corporations. Less tax paid by individuals means more money for profits for those corporations. Limiting liberty with tougher laws and more police powers sounds like the government wants to control our every move. It seems that the public has been fooled into believing that the party in power is Conservative when in reality they are neo-cons that will reveal their true agenda if ,God forbid, they are ever given a majority.
[updated Mon Jul 21 10:13:03 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 10:13
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Tom, there is a lot of truth to what you say and lawrence Martin has a good piece in today's G&M.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080721.wcomartin21/BNStory/specialComment
To wit:
"Changes are necessary for obvious reasons. The Conservatives have been sliding in the polls. Their recent series of mini-scandals, some prompted by too much Karl Roving, has clouded their image of cleanliness and competence. They are seen as being too blue when the trend line is green, they are dropping in popularity in Quebec, the economy is suspect, and the war in Afghanistan, which they enthusiastically embraced, is going badly. To top it all, they have posted no vision of where they want to take the country.
Moreover, an opposition leader once on the point of crumbling hasn't crumbled. Mr. Dion's Green Shift plan has changed the political dynamic, elevating his image from wimp to risk-taker, staking his party to a strong vision, putting the PM on the defensive.
The Conservatives were relying heavily on Mr. Harper's big lead over Mr. Dion in personal leadership rankings. But that's less certain now. They were relying heavily on making big gains in Quebec. That's not at all certain. They were hoping to be able to boast of sound economic management. But that's hard to do if the economy is sliding."
....................
In order to get their party back to traditional Tory roots they will have to torpedo the reform wing of the party which is where Harper gets his support and that's not about to happen soon so I see nowhere for them to go in terms of a majority government under this administration. I believe the tories have more serious issues in both Quebec and Ontario that have not been yet picked up by the pollsters. If Dion's plan and his presence (personal ratings) picks up the Liberals will do very well in both provinces or at least well enought to flirt with majority territory assuming the maritimes and BC votes stay stable.
[updated Mon Jul 21 15:55:42 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 15:55
Tom Good
Larryl and TPQ------I believe I can answer you both as your themes are similar.All governments, no matter what their political stripe, are prone to scandal-----scandal is not right but it is a reality when you mix power and money in business or politics or settling up Great Aunt Matilda's estate.
There is a tendency today in Conservatism for the far right to take control and this is true south of the border too. I suggested the "Conservative" Party had seemingly lost touch with its traditional base and had not "grown" in its support. The liberal-Conservatives (note the small "l") element of the party is sitting on their hands as shown by poll after poll. All political parties have diverse membership and they have to draw up their programme to appeal to most of their party and to most of their hoped for electorate. They have to "ATTRACT". If a well organized fringe element within the party can control the levers of power, they may do so to the Party's peril at the ballot box. I believe the amalgamation of the Reform and Progressive Conservatives has allowed the Reform element undue control of the levers of power. I believe the "old" Progressive Conservatives see this and have "backed off" as poll after poll shows no growth in POPULAR support. I believe most of the electorate tend to be "centre-roaders" or sit next to that position. The electorate for any political party is NOT an identifiable group except for a SMALL CORE----the majority of the electorate is very fluid and over the life of minority governments in Canada, this has grown into a huge "swing voter" group----"the undecideds". It is my opinion, that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have managed to greatly interest that swing voter to their party's electoral peril. As the Liberals are traditionally a centre party, they are not quite in the quicksand the Conservatives have put themselves into. Repeatedly, the polls show the electorate favouring Conservative leadership while favouring the Liberal "brand". Is this not part of the political quandry for the electorate at the moment?
On the other hand, Liberals must learn to govern conservatively if they wish to have a stable long term mandate. Somehow, I do not think Dion's suggested eco-taxes fit the picture but does Dion see that????
If the present Conservatives could learn to govern as liberal-Conservatives, I am sure they would profit from encumbancy and form a majority on October 19, 2009. As I said, I am not holding my breath. If Dion could put forward conservative-Liberal long term programmes, then the voter would have a viable alternative if the current minority government wishes to try to govern from well right-of-centre. In both political parties, CHANGE in THINKING has to occur and the first there will have a political advantage.
Yes, to be politically stable, all governments MUST have long term goals that appeal to most of the electorate. There are lots of long term issues for Canada that are hot potatoes for the Liberals and Conservatives.
---Delivery of hospital service / medical care.
---Education and training OUR population.
---Preserving Canada's natural resources.
---Sensible immigration.
---Arctic sovereignty.
---Scientiffically addressing the over-hyped climate change issue.
---Codeifying sensibly some social issues.
---Downsizing the cost of government.
---Senate reform.
---Bringing the Government of Canada into the 21st century with proportionate representation coast to coast.
---Removing roadblocks to inter provincial trade.
And many more. Important issues are there but we do not hear much about them.. WHY??????
[updated Mon Jul 21 19:04:37 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 19:04
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Tom, governng as liberal conservatives is the right prescription for Canada. However, I don't see Harper moving in that direction and if he does he might well fracture the conservative coalition that is now run from the far right.
The liberals have more to gain here because their left wing voters parked more votes with the Greens and NDP than their center right colleagues did with the Tories in the last election.
Therefore, the tried and true Liberal platform of running on the left and governng from the center right appears to be ripe for victory again.
The devil is in the details however, and Dion needs to credibly pull off his tax shift platform to win, a sthat platform can take root and carry the day.
We will soon see many more attack ads coming from the Tories who are desperate to destroy Dion since Harper is all they have to run on and that's getting weaker.
[updated Mon Jul 21 22:07:18 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 22:07
Bernie
Tom, a voice of sense and reason
As I see it, you have two overriding beliefs. One is the the majority of Canadians are centrists and are reasonably tolerant of goverments wandering just a little either right or left, but just a little.
Two is that a government when in power defeats itself, rather than the opposition bringing it down.
I believe those too. Your last few posts just put meat on the bare bones of those two dictums.
There are a lot of issues the parties should be focusing on. They should be more out front, loud and clear on where they stand. They should be clear and precise and not practising the spin-doctoring.
We should have a debate about priorities. I would still place the environment high on the list.
The scientists have made the same case as was made re the earth orbiting the sun. The argument is over. The case closed. Yet some do not accept scientific facts.
Another is taxes. We do not pay enough taxes. We can never say taxes are too high as long as there is a segment of our society who live in such a state of deprivation as we have today. Also there are other important isues that still need money to be resolved. Throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily solve the problem. But if we haven't got the money we can't provide adequate health, education and social services. Having enough money is the first priority and applying it wisely come second.
I can never understand those who complain about those on the bottom receiving help and at the same time don't say a word about ten times as much going to corporations and the wealthy.
I can only surmise that they are well-off themselves and have an over abundace of greed.
[updated Tue Jul 22 08:22:32 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 08:22
Tom Good
Helo Bernie:---This endless climate change issue for which politicians "have the answer" is better referred to a scientific inquiry. 40 years ago we were heading into the next ice age and today we are going to choke and fry---I do not believe Dion nor Harper on the issue and it is a major issue for the world.
Yes, we have lots of problems to solve on our own turf and it is a case of setting priorities as you suggest. I believe you are alluding to a major problem in our western democracies and that is that the government is not so much "of the people" as it initially was in a more agricultural society. In the industrial society, we are seeing OUR governments meaning the peoples governments being increasingly influenced by multi nationals or corporate interests. Wealth has power which is usually used for self interest to the detriment of society as a whole. I am sure this topic can go on forever but I listened to American commentators on PBS and this was an example: General Motors wanted to build vehicles for the Chinese market and the Chinese wanted industrial item X which was a component for the American smart bomb. Clinton allowed the first stage which was allowed, but GM wanted more as did the Chinese. Bush allowed the final export for the technology of item X satisfying the Chinese and GM. Now, the US has to import from China components for their smart bomb-----make sense ???? I look at Canada and the food label that says Product Of Canada, whereby if 51% of the cost can be shown to Canadian then it is Canadian. So we get Indonesian and Viet Nam shrimp and basa fish that are a Product of Canada---corporate self interest ??? Harper is after this but it has not changed as yet., Here is another thought---think of the total dollars spent on the Afghanistan War and what those dollars could have done for the infrastructure underpinning Canada but we do seem to get ourselves involved in the "Oil Wars" of our neighbour.
[updated Tue Jul 22 19:39:22 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 19:39
Bernie
Hi Tom: I don't recall hearing that we were headed for an ice age. If so I don't think it was predicted by scientists. Or Maybe a few pseudo scientists. We have them today as well I can name a half dozen. They are either contrarians or work for vested interests like corporations or universities who get their grants from the fossil fuel indusrty.
Global warning is no longer a prediction. It is a proven fact and supported by the National Acadamy of Sciences and the Toyal Society. Over 10,000 of the best scientists.
It is a global issue but our voice is useless unless we are doing something first. Only then will others listen.
I am in 100% agreement with the second part of your post. I can list many examples of where our governments favour political benefits over that of their citizens, even favouring foreign corporations and governments.
Our Dept of Health, especially the Fod Inspection Agency, is a disgrace. Our Justice Dept. should be renamed ``ìnjustice``
The good of the country is not the driving force in the decision making of the politicians
[updated Wed Jul 23 08:23:25 -0400 2008]
23 Jul 08:23
Tom Good
Hello Bernie:---Yes in the 60s, the ice age cometh and that was the scientific thought at that time. What I am trying to say about climate change is that it is a political football in Canada at the moment. This issue has been seized upon as THE election issue by the Liberals, rightly or wrongly, and the political arena easily manages to distort if it gives political advantage. On the other hand, the Conservatives try to "bend" the issue the other way to their political advantage. Somewhere in between the two there POSSIBLY may be the route to follow for Canada.
I believe there should be an independent panel established primarily of scientists with membership also of economists and tax experts to examine what Canada can do in a rational, fair manner with the short term and long term findings presented to parliament for open debate and free vote. I do not think the panel should have corporate membership as corporations and multinationals promote their own interests to the exclusion of those in the country in which they find themselves and to the exclusion of the welfare of individuals-----corporations have undue advantage to lobby government as it is---they are bottom line, dividend and bonus people only.
I do not think we should get a swollen head and think we are going to sway the world on this issue with a half of one percent of the world population and, as a modern industrial nation, about two percent of the pollution. As you say, clean up our backyard first then shout.
[updated Wed Jul 23 10:22:19 -0400 2008]
23 Jul 10:22
Bernie
Tom: I agree. Too often politicians take important issues and turn them into political football.
It's especially true when the ruling party perceives itself to be on higher ground and the field is tilted against the opposition.
It's disappointing to see a lack to interest in such negative things in our world. We don't react until the threat is on our doorstep. As individuals we don't scream to constrain the beast until our own ox is gored .
Anyway we maybe looking forward to an interesting Fall.
[updated Thu Jul 24 06:45:41 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 06:45
larryl
tom. the only thing panels are good for is doing the rec room in the basement. you don't need more evidence to prove that climate change is happening. the main argument is now focused on what the cause is and can we do anything about it. hurricane season in the caribbean has already started and that used to happen in September. Ontario has just had the wettest June and July in the last 30 years and we still have a week to go in this month.Other parts of the world are experiencing similar changes but we can't agree on what the causes are. I don't think you will find any one who thinks we are doing the planet any good with G.H.G. The Conservative approach was until recently to just ignore the problem but then the voters decided it was a serious issue. The Liberals came up with a plan that seems to most just another tax grab . I doubt if any one can look at the problem in a non partisan way and determine what would be best for the environment. I do believe we are equipped to make a much more significant impact than the numbers would indicate. The biggest threat is developement in Asia. If we stop importing from the other side of the planet that would slow their expansion and reduce our carbon footprint at the same time. I realize we are small players in the global economy but it would be a step in the right direction . The Chinese work for a fraction of what we do and can since they don't lose half their earnings to the tax man.The only reason prices are what they are in this country is because we are dumb enough to pay them. Consumers have power but don't know how to use it. I have not had cable or satellite t.v. for years . You could not pay me to carry a cell phone.One car in the driveway for 10 years now and no car for 5 years before that.I don't pay for this internet connection since one of my neighbors has wireless and leaves it unsecured. If more people did these little things prices would drop.
I have been called uninformed , dumb and many other things on this site by some who think they have all the answers but they don't seem to come up with much that we all can do to change things. When 10 % of the population contributes 30% of our G.H.G. emissions and only to benefit the U.S. maybe it is time we did something. It will probably be political suicide for Dion or worse lead to the break up of our country but we must act now before it is too late.
[updated Thu Jul 24 09:30:47 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 09:30
larryl
tom.Again you seem to be the only one who actually thinks in terms of what would be "Good" for the country rather than what is best for party reelection. M.R.M. and Hollin are so anti Liberal they would vote for the devil if he ran as a Conservative. Parnel And T.P.Q.
should see that Dion is the worst choice the Liberals could have made and has allowed Harper to govern as though he had a majority. There are some new voices but they are just as partisan as the other three.
If we look at the issues you pointed out are important ,we will not get much of a clue where the parties stand .Their excuse will be that they are provincial responsibilities in some cases and they don't want to interfere with provincial jurisdiction.
!. Health care is covered by the Canada Health Act but more and more services are being taken over by the private sector. Clement is seldom seen or heard but is leading the way to getting rid of Medicare.
2. Education at all levels is under funded and will soon be for the privledged . Montessori schools, faith based and private schools are flourishing while public education is in this province is mismanaged. Half the budgets are spent on buses and portable class rooms.Post secondary tuition leaves students $ 30 to 40,000 in debt when they graduate.
3. Our natural resources are being exploited for the benefit of the U.S. Oil and water don't mix except when it comes to producing tar-sands oil that is only profitable when the world price is $100 a barrel. Forestry was a large part of our economy until the Liberal-Conservative M.P. from B.C. now minister of foreign affairs negotiated a new agreement. I wonder how many voters know that a former Conservative minister in the Harris gov't signed a deal that allowed a foreign company to export 1,000,000 liters of water per day without paying for it?
4. In order to decentralize power immigration has been relegated to provincial gov'ts.
5. Arctic sovereignty is only based on oil reserves under the frozen tundra that will not be frozen much longer.
6. Climate changed might be over-hyped but that is the only way we will look at the problem before it is too late to do anything about it. Since profit is the only thing that matters , it would cost too much to act on it now.
7. Social issues are actually socialism creeping into our lives and we can't have that.
8. Democracy is making a choice with your vote. Proportional representation is only good for the fringe elements to have a voice that would be ignored by the party in power.More members sitting on the back benches twiddling their thumbs and spending our money.
9. Inter provincial trade is hardly a concern since we import everything from China and export all that we produce to the U.S.
The long term goal of our government should be to grow our population and our economy for the benefit our citizens but that would conflict with the capitalist way of thinking. Profit and as much of it as possible as soon as possible is the only thing that matters. The belief that which party we elect makes any difference is like believing we can actually find an honest politician. The Progressive Conservatives that you mentioned are still out there but in order to come back from their death bed at the hands of Lyin Brain were forced to make a deal with the neo-cons . They will soon rid themselves of the extremists on the right and swing more toward the center. The Liberals figured out long ago that you tell them what they want to hear and then do exactly what you wanted to do in the first place.The more things change the more they stay the same. There is little we can do to change any of what goes on.Pity.
[updated Tue Jul 22 09:17:26 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 09:17
Tom Good
Larryl: good comment.
[updated Tue Jul 22 21:36:55 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 21:36
Foxer
We do hear about many of those issues tom - medical services got several comments early on in harper's term, and he addressed something that has gone neglected for ages - mental illness. That's important.
Education as you know is a provincial responsibility
'preserving' our natural resources - well i'm not sure exactly what you mean there, but surely the environmental portfolio has come up many times.
Immigration was the subject of a vote just recently.
Arctic soverignty has been acted on as well, and has been a subject of much debate.
social issues... well, i'll give you that one. There hasn't been a LOT of discussion there. But they HAVE put money and had discussions towards some of the economic crisis, giving communities money to retrain people and adapt.
Senate reform :) heh - i don't think you can claim he's been silent on that issue, that's for sure.
PR - that's been a real tough one for the public to get their head around. Not everyone likes the idea. And it's not 'progress' to move in that direction, it's just a different way of doing business. Change for the sake of change is questionable - it's got to be the right thing for us to do. And i'm not sure it is, and neither is a rather large part of the country. Efforts to bring it in elsewhere have failed.
The premiers have just announced a major agreement reducing barriers to interprovincial trade. It is their jurisdiction after all.
I think if you haven't been hearing about those issues - you may have just missed a few stories. Lets face it - the media prefers scandal and 'hot topics', and those are the stories that are going to get the most 'air time' no matter what.
[updated Tue Jul 22 16:48:34 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 16:48
Tom Good
Hello Foxer: Many of the issues you comment on are tinkering by the government. Immigration was looked at for expediting process and not looked at as a long term issue---say good for 10 years. Natural resources----self explanatory----how about fresh water that will be next on our neighbour's shopping list. It is a cop-out to refer so many important issues to the "do not touch list" of provincial jurisdiction such as education , inter-provincial trade, hospitals, and the list goes on. The Federal Government is in a leadership role within the federation and it is not showing that leadership, in my opinion.----Proportional representation is NOT change for changes sake. In BC we get one MP for each 118,000 population, in PEI there is one MP for each 33,000 population, in Sask there is one MP for each 71,000 population---who is getting screwed ????? There has been nothing done about Senate reform as long as I have been alive----so far there has been nothing more than wind out of the Government of Canada regarding the Senate. I give Harper good marks for his interest in the Canadian Arctic treasure chest. He has SAID there will be a deep sea port at Ninivisk and a training facility at Resolute---that was a year ago and what has happened in the interim? What about those ice-capable ships---any news out there?
[updated Tue Jul 22 22:37:51 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 22:37
Foxer
Tinkering perhaps - but some of it is significant.
Remember - harper has been pushing for programs to recognize the credentials of foreign trained workers here as well, agressively. That needs some co-operation with the provinces. And moving to get rid of the backlog.
Those aren't 'small' things. And he's only got a minority gov't.
Natural resources is a big subject tom :) you can't just say 'self explanitory' - he's done some work in areas like fisheries and such, and in others not so much.
I haven't heard any talk from the feds about water, but realistically i doubt we will till someone else brings it up. Mind you - i never heard the libs or anyone else go on about it much either.
And no - it is NOT a cop out to say 'its a provincial matter'. I cannot stress that enough - the vast majority of our seperation movements are based on problems created when the feds step into provincial matters. Quebecers don't need ottawa to tell them what's best for quebec, and neither does the west. You'll notice that almost immediately after harper took power and started to release provincial matters to the provinces, both quebec and western seperatists lost power dramatically.
You do NOT hold the country together by trying to rule all with an iron fist from a central location - let the provinces do what they're supposed to do.
You mention proporitonal representation but then quote the mp's per voter ratio - PR usually refers to systems designed to replace 'first past the post' systems with something like STV, which i'm sure you remember our referendum on. I took that to be what you meant - did i misunderstand? Are you refering to equalizing the number of voters per representatives?
If you are btw - harper did put a bill forward on that to increase bc and alberta and ontario's representation to more accurately reflect the population. It's been stalled - that's the problem with a minority gov't.
And in case you weren't paying attention, harper has been fighting tooth and nail about 'senate reform' with the senate itself. They won't pass his bill. He started small, looking to cap them at 8 years, but he's having a HELL of a time getting it thru. He's been VERY vocal about it. I'm surprised you didn't read more about it - it's been in the papers several times, he even went to the senate to yell at them. :)
And yes - the polar 5 ships are being built, he's talking about having 8 by the end of it all. That began in 2007, but the process will take a long time. You just don't provision for and build a ship overnight. They will be able to take on ice up to 1 meter thick. Enough to patrol our arctic lanes.
I mean no offense, but it sounds a little like maybe you just missed some of the news on some of these subjects. Considering he's got a minority, harper has done an amazing amount in the last 2.5 years he's been in power on those subjects. Even when you have a majority those things take time - but with a minority to get anything done at all is a minor miracle.
[updated Tue Jul 22 23:31:52 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 23:31
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Funny how his so called list of achievements has not garnered any love form Canada's voters. The fact remains is that his government has screwed up moe things than they've accomplished.
How about income trust lies and rejigs?
How about scandals that are hittng the press big time simply because he ran on honesty and accountability and has failed misrably at it.
I haven't seen anything in the news about the polar ships and those contracts are always political and in the news.
How about the fact he played exceptionally dangerous politics by going after the quebec NATION issue with a sledge hammer. That effort will only play well with separatists once they get wind in their sails again. And they will which is why we have Dion's Clarity act legislation to back us up from stupidity like Harper's grandstanding.
How about the stupidist tax cut of all? The GST cut which has only served to drain the treasury and in reality pit no more money in Canadians pockets other than the wealthy who buy more.
And the next stupid thing to hit is the so called windfall from the Spectrum auctions just held. The prices paid are a downloading of $230 in costs, a new tax so to speak, to every cellphone owner in Canada and we are already behind most other Countries in Cell phone ownership due to outrageous cost structures.
So, please don't bore us with successes if you can't count the falures which are many and brutal.
[updated Wed Jul 23 09:58:38 -0400 2008]
23 Jul 09:58
Foxer
Hasn't garnered any love from voters eh? :) Actually, there's a lot of evidence to suggest it has impressed them.
However - i think what we're seeing is this. The liberal gov't ran a pretty nasty smear campaign during the last election, and a lot of people were hesitant about harper. So - he was elected but people said "well maybe he'll be good, maybe he'll be bad, we'll give him a chance and we'll decide when we see what he's done".
As he went along, people tended to say 'ok, not bad so far, but we'll wait and see". A little further and they say "not bad, but we'll wait and see".
They won't decide till an election. Then they'll look at what harper's done and what dion's done, and they'll look at the 'green shift' and whatever harper offers, and they'll make a choice.
But if you notice, the polls for 'who would make the best pm' always have fewer undecideds, and much more support for harper. At this point in time, people may be withholding judgement - BUT - they clearly favour harper. They're not going to decide tho till they get to an election and look at all the issues.
Unfortunately for dion - that favours harper. He's much better in an election than dion is. And it would seem harper already has the edge.
This is not an uncommon phenomenon, Especially during a minority gov't. Momentum will be everything.
If you want to see what happens when people have to choose suddenly - look at the vancouver by election. The Libs went from winning by several thousand votes down to winning by 150. And that's in a traditionally solid liberal riding with a good candidate. Or outremont, saskatchewan. Etc.
The voters aren't ready to render their verdict yet, but it's clear which way they're leaning.
If you haven't seen anything in the news about the polar ships - do a few google searches. They were announced and funded almost a year ago, and they are in the final design stages and construction will be done in canada.
He didn't play any dangerous politics at all. Quebec is sick of being treated like it needs ottawa to hold it's hand. Frankly - so's the west. Harper didd the right thing. As i said before in another post, harper tends to believe that ALL provinces represent a unique society within canada.
And if you knew a little more about politics, you'd understand that is the BASIS of the idea of a Confederation. We're not a republic - we're a confederation.
The only people it's dangerous to is those who believe that Canada must be run with an iron fist from a centralized gov't that will TELL canadians how to be canadians, rather than listening.
[updated Wed Jul 23 13:37:14 -0400 2008]
23 Jul 13:37
Foxer
The GST - hehehehe - this is one of my favorite examples of liberal hypocracy :)
Lets start with your statement - it 'drained the treasury', but it gave nothing back to the people.
Well how does THAT work? If you give billions it tax cuts, they have to go SOMEWHERE! So where did these billions go if not back to the people? Businesses don't pay gst, they get any they pay back. Rich people don't pay much gst - they find a way to write it off against their business (i certanly do.) So where'd the money go? That's right - into the hands of the middle class and the working poor, where it represents a significant part of their income. The average person who gets a break every time he fills his gas tank, every time he buys birthday gifts for his kids or at christmas, and every time he wants to take a vacation with the wife, or if he wants to finally buy that new car he's been saving for.
So right off the bat - you should have realized how crazy it is to say 'the tax drained our accounts' but also say 'but it really didn't give money back to the people'. BOTH can't be true, the money goes somewhere! :)
Second - the liberals campaigned against getting rid of the tax and now defend it like it was STUPID to ever speak against it. So... is dion stupid, or was chretien? Who is the liar here?
The Conservatives on the other hand brought it in saying it was there to defeat the deficit. Now that the deficit is gone, they're reducing it. True to their word.
Your idea that it's downloading costs to the consumer for spectrum are particularly misinformed. In fact - it downloads virtually no cost - the spectrum is an asset, not an expense. They own it just as they would own a new building they bought.
And it will allow cell companies to offer new and better services, and take on more customers for the SAME infrastructure they have. And by allowing competition they will make the prices better, not worse. 4 billion and that will allow them to have more customers and more companies and offer more services for less money. The costs can be amortized over the next 50 years if they like. Hell they can even sell it if they need to, or 'lease' it out to other companies in the future. And now new players can get into the market too.
Whoever told you that it downloads 230 dollars in costs to the consumer is an idiot and has some serious math and business comprehension problems. Unless they maybe meant 230 dollars in costs over the next 60 years or so, or about 4 bucks a year. And they'll get more services for that.
The biggest problem the liberals have right now is that more and more people are taking the time to actually LEARN about this stuff - and when that happens, statements from people like you really don't hold any water with them :)
And that's why dion is going to lose the next election, and badly. This isn't 1970 where you can just start a rumour based on a falsehood and expect people to believe it.
[updated Wed Jul 23 13:37:28 -0400 2008]
23 Jul 13:37
MRM
TPQ - You must have missed this when it was announced. If you are so ill informed as to not be aware of this major announcement it goes along way to explaining the rest of your statements and once again puts your credibility into serious question.
Polar Class 5 Arctic offshore patrol ships
On July 9, 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the construction of up to eight Polar Class 5 Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships and the establishment of a deep water port in the far North.
These new Polar Class 5 Arctic offshore patrol ships will be built in Canada: The CBC reported that the vessels "...are expected to be based on the Royal Norwegian Navy's Svalbard class design". With steel-reinforced hulls, they will be capable of operating in ice up to one metre thick, and each vessel will also be equipped with a helicopter landing pad. They will be able to patrol the length of the Northwest Passage during the summer navigable season and its approaches year-round, and will also be capable of full operations on the east and west coasts throughout the year. Critics have noted that the vessels are less capable than the three larger icebreakers Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in 2006.
To conduct sea-borne surveillance operations in the Arctic, a deep-water port (likely at Nanisivik, Nunavut) will be constructed to allow the patrol ships to resupply and refuel. Harper announced in 2006 that the deep-water port would be built in Iqaluit. On July 9, 2007 the CBC reported that four ports were under consideration.
[updated Thu Jul 24 01:17:38 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 01:17
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Announcmentds and actual action are two different things with liars like harper. I asked whenthe contracts were awarded and to whom?
[updated Thu Jul 24 06:56:32 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 06:56
MRM
TParnelQ – As usual you are WRONG AGAIN and once again you show how misinformed you are. It is likely because you are so blinded by hate for everything Tory that you cannot see the truth even when it is right in front of you.
Armed Naval Icebreakers (A/OPS) – Industry News Release – June 2008
BMT Fleet Technology News Release — AOPS Definition,
Engineering, Logistics and Management Support Contract
________________________________________
Defining and Managing the Canadian Forces Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship Project
The contract award for AOPS DELMS – or Definition, Engineering, Logistics and Management Support – is covered in two industry news releases. One is from BMT Fleet Technology of Kanata, Ontario which was awarded the DELMS contract. The other is from Aker Yards Marine Inc, a Vancouver BC-based consulting naval archi- tecture and marine engineering firm, a part of the BMT team for the AOPS DELMS.
The other members of the BMT AOPS DELMS team are BAE Systems of Glasgow, Scotland; Calian, a quality assurance services firm based in Kanata, Ontario; plus various other elements of the larger BMT Group throughout the world.
With the contract award came the release of AOPS [1] conceptual artwork. Many differences are apparent from Svalbard, the presumed model for Canada’s planned AOPS. These are reviewed in Armed Naval Icebreaker/ Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship.
Technical details of the proposed AOPS are covered separately in a summary of the Proposed Ship Capabilities and Technical Statement of Operational Requirement
[updated Thu Jul 24 12:40:18 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 12:40
MRM
TPQ - You are strangely silent? I guess that is because you are still trying to extricate your foot from your oversized mouth.
[updated Thu Jul 24 23:42:04 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 23:42
goodshot1950
I fully agree with your comments but one important element is missing. A simple process that will introduce credibility, respect and trust to the politician and that is the ability for the electorate to fire their representative, per riding, if they fail to listen and follow the wishes of the voter. To me it is our self defense to protect ourselves from the garbage we have been subjected to by these people. It's long overdue...
[updated Fri Aug 29 09:03:43 -0400 2008]
29 Aug 09:03
Tom Good
Hello: Recall legislation was implemented in British Columbia but subsequent governments can modify that legislation so it just will not work. ---Yours is a very good suggestion but, unfortunately, in our system it just will not work as a politicians first priority is survival once elected thus the interest in making sure any recall legislation cannot be applied against them.
[updated Fri Aug 29 16:00:59 -0400 2008]
29 Aug 16:00
westerner (suspended)
Lawrence Martin is a Conservative hater. Very convenient for Liberals to quote him. I suspect he sees himself as non partisan but his anti Conservative rants have become legendary.
[updated Mon Jul 21 22:57:47 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 22:57
MRM
Tom – With respect I think that you are a bit off with some of your assumptions / opinions. First of all I am not sure how they are “not recognizing the diversity that makes up Canada.” They have moved more files in this area than 13 years of Liberal rule. For instance now that the aboriginal apology has made history, others are also in the air. Canada has already apologized for interning many Japanese during the Second World War and for the Chinese head tax in the early 1900s. Next month, Harper will apologize to the Sikh community for the 1914 Komataga Maru incident, when a boatload of Punjabi refugees were turned away from B.C.
He's also expected to apologize to Italian Canadians for their internment during the Second World War and to Jewish Canadians for the many refugees from the Nazis we turned away and lastly they finally got at least some justice for the Air India victims.
Secondly, the assumption that there is a changing climate in Quebec is not supported by the polls and every indication is that the Liberals are in trouble in Montreal and will likely get locked out of every riding outside of Montreal. These polls were done after the fallout from the Elections Canada case, Cadman incident and the Bernier resignation (which actually helped them in Quebec). I am not sure why you would add the Order of Canada for Morgentaler? Canadians are smart enough to know that this was not done by the government but rather the GG. As for the “indifference to the plight of Canadians abroad” they have been quite successful in most cases. Brenda Martin was her own worst enemy and garnered very little sympathy from either the media or the public. Similarly neither is the Omar Khadr imprisonment in the infamous Guantanamo Bay which by the way he served for three years under the Liberals who also did not ask for his extradition. The revelation in today’s national press that if he were returned he would walk scot free is likely the reason why extradition was not requested and the US did not offer to send him back. It would be to hard to explain to his widow and three children why we let his murdered go free.
As for wanting to stay in power, every government does and I suspect that this one is no different in that regard. Your statement below has set some lofty goals for a minority government. Goals that many years of Liberal majorities could not achieve.
“they should stand for health care, address the tax code, education and they should stand for principle and not how to defeat the Liberals.”
Just a bit unfair and way over the top in my view.
With regards to the nonsense in the House, Canadians see most of it as coming from the Official Opposition who are increasingly being viewed as obstructionist and I suggest that this could have a far greater "backfire" potential than anything the government has done.
[updated Mon Jul 21 23:42:03 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 23:42
Tom Good
HRM;---What you say about history is true and that cannot be changed----we can do a little about today and a bit more about tomorrow. At the moment, Harper is willingly in the driver's seat so he is the one to get the flack quite naturally. Harper controls the Speaker who controls the decorum of the House. Quebec is a little difficult to predict and at this stage neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are where each would like. I believe we part company when the rights of Canadians becomes a rather arbitary application re Martins and Khadr but if one was a dual citizen Lebonese in their last conflict, we move heaven and earth and give a few a ride in the Prime Minister's plane too.. I would like to think that if I got into difficulties outside Canada, my Canadian Government would STAND UP for my rights rather than hold up a finger to see which way the wind was blowing. The justice system is supposed to be blind in its application of Canadian law and so should be the rights of Canadian citizenship. Lastly, whoever is the Government of Canada should be held to high ideals / goals for the good of Canada. Nothing is "over the top" but some may take a little longer to achieve and they are all achieveable.
[updated Tue Jul 22 00:26:36 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 00:26
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Tom , another good post and very valid points. The aboriginal apology Harper made was done on behalf of all Canadians ans was forced on him by a parliamentary committee. He was at his acting best when he made it but the record will show that it was not a tory iniative.
Other apologies are now coming ONLY because he sees them in a political light. His support of the Quebec nation issue was nothing more than crude politics and one we will pay for later on if a separatist government gets back in power there.
We are viewed by the world as a peaceful resource rich country and the current government wants to change that view and have us seen as part of the NA milieu and closer to the American style. I can't see that happening which is one of the reasons Harper is sinking in most polls.
Paul Martin's approach to Khadr is the for the same reasons you espouse which is that justice should be blind. Personally I wisd there were some non partisian ways to strip certain people of their citizenship but there could never be a fair application of such a law.
[updated Tue Jul 22 03:45:18 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 03:45
Tom Good
TPQ----Yes, I would rather we be quite distinct from what has been described as Imperial United States. The current "Americanization" of our foreign policy will likely have a short life span as both McCain and Obama do not intend to follow Bush's Imperial policies---or so they say. Also, if the Conservatives do not change American Alliance thinking, the Government of Canada is likely to change. Although climate change is being politically pushed as a major election issue, Afghanistan is more than simmering on the back burner whether Harper or Dion like it or not. You can be sure that Layton rightly will not let it pass without loud comment.
Young Khadr was born a Canadian therefore he should be entitled to the same privileges of citizenship as you and I are entitled to. How the family ever got into Canada in the first place is a mighty good question. You remember that Chretien intervened for the father when he was imprisioned in Pakistan but the father was shot later as Taliban. When the Taliban were known as the Mujhadeen and fighting the Russians, they were considered American allies and bank rolled, armed and trained by the Americans even with surface to air missiles. As you say, a good reason to be completely independent of American foreign policy that, at times, can switch about like a cat's tail.
In United States, immigrants can be stripped of their citizenship if they are convicted of illegal activity----they get a one way ticket "home". I do not believe we have anything similar in Canada except immigrants who have falsified their papers and there have been a few examples of wartime prison guards being exposed and losing citizenship and being shipped out. In the Vancouver area a couple of young car racers who killed and omitted to take out citizenship, were shipped back to India. If one is born here, he/she is a citizen and we have to deal with that person as a Canadian.
[updated Tue Jul 22 05:32:09 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 05:32
Foxer
Tom - as i recall the liberals were the ones who took us to afghanistan. And i'm not sure i can think of any other 'american foreign policy' we're supporting at the moment.
We do have something 'similar' in canada to the american policy, however it is restricted to misinformation on one's application. If someone has committed an offense or lied on their papers they can be tossed. However, we wait a much longer time to grant citizenship as well - the idea being that if they've been 'good' for a few years with no troubles, chances are they're 'ok'. I prefer that method personally.
As to kandr - he is facing justice for crimes he committed in a foreign country to a different foreign country. He's not facing canadian justice. There are thousands of canadians all over the world facing judgements or in jail, and we're not screaming about them. That lady from Mexico comes to mind.
I don't think we should be messing with other countries justice systems, unless they're so odious that we're prepared to put up a REAL fight about it and take actions against that country regardless of who's in jail. This kid will have to face the american justice system, for better or worse. The lesson here is, if you don't want to face american justice, don't throw grenades at 'em, they get pissy about it. :)
Historically, Foreign policy hasn't had much effect on the population at voting time. We're more concerned about our health and economy than what's going on elsewhere.
[updated Tue Jul 22 17:03:33 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 17:03
Tom Good
Hello Foxer: You are right---The liberals took us to Afghanistan as peace keepers that morphed into peace makers---two entirely different roles. You remember Harper, in opposition, was saying loud and clear that we should follow the Americans into Iraq and that gave rise to Chretiens quote of...."the last I heard we were still a sovereign nation".
I am not aware of wait time in other jurisdictions for the awarding of citizenship. As you say, our system seems to work but I would still like to know that immigrants have a working knowledge / functional ability in either official language before citizenship was awarded.
Foreign policy--historically------Conscription for the World War 1 and 2 was a major issue and the Afghanistan War is a "delicate" issue when considering the origin of what troops to dispatch. It would be folly to think Afghanistan will not be an issue especially with the contradiction of statements we have heard from the US and our Chief of Armed Services in the last two weeks. It is a bloody mess and an ill conceived intervention. Canadians and Canadian based companies have a little difficulty trading into Cuba. At one time Trudeau was the devil incarnate for opening talks with China until Nixon went then it was all sweetness and light.. We derive many benefits from living next door to the Americans but we must "keep our place".
You are quite right---"don't throw grenades at 'em, they get pissy about it" That is true in any war but it is for the winners and the big guys to be righteous about it. No war is justified and I rather think the Americans are going to "settle a score" with a kid, out of the reach of all courts the we take for granted. Omar Khadr is not facing the American justice system nor is he facing the Canadian justice system and that is what is so terribly wrong. We take a lot for granted sitting comfortably behind our borders.
[updated Tue Jul 22 18:59:01 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 18:59
Foxer
Tom - afghanistan was always a combat mission. The liberals took us to kandahar as well, not the cpc.
This idea that it 'was' peacekeeping' but is now 'peacemaking' is silly. We invaded. As the UN, not as the 'Americans'. It was a war from day one, not a 'peacekeeping mission'. As it is, if security isn't provided, anything that was achieved there will fall apart. We won't be saving any lives, or teaching any kids or rebuilding anything without troops to provide security, at least until their army is up to speed.
Considering what the taliban do to women, gays, and those who oppose them, would you suggest that we turn the people back over to them unprotected?
I remember the American ambassador pointing out that Chretien did indeed offer to send troops to iraq. And i remember Chretien allowed the canadian exchange soldiers to participate there.
Our citizenship program has needed a little attention for a long time. I'll agree with you there, that's for sure.
I'm not sure you can compare 'conscription' with afghanistan - conscription affected canadians rather directly (obviously) in the same way health care does. Afghanistan tho, that's an all volunteer thing. And even the liberal-lead team harper sent didn't suggest a pull out. I think it will be a pretty minor issue at best. People may not like the war, but nobody really has a better solution at the moment.
It is possible that some american may choose to 'square up' with Omar for his crimes, rather than let him go to trial. But - that would make that guy a criminal, and there are legal remedies to that too. And he is in fact facing the american justice system. He has a lawyer, he has had hearings (trying to figure out which court has jurisdiction over him) and he will have a trial.
He will not face canadian justice, because he's committed no crime in canada that i'm aware of, and he's not attacked canadian soldiers that i'm aware of. Why on earth would he be tried here?
The kid and his father made their choices. I don't believe in the death penalty, but if i went to texas and started lobbing grenades around i'd pretty much expect that i'd be facing the death penalty under the laws there. If I don't want to face the justice of another country, it's best not to go there and break the law.
And for us - it's not up to us to tell other countries what their laws should be, as long as the kid does get a trial. He'll get his chance to make his case and to face his punishment or not if he's innocent. The medic he killed won't be getting any such chances.
[updated Tue Jul 22 19:22:50 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 19:22
MRM
The first Canadian Afghan mission was conducted by 3 PPCLI from Edm AB. The operation was called OP APOLLO and started in Feb 02. Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan was to be an active combatant in operations against the Taliban and other insurgents in southern Afghanistan. Most of the time was spent rooting out insurgents in the mountains of Tora Bora. We lost four brothers in that operation and many more since. To call this operation a peacekeeping mission clearly shows the depths of ones lack of knowledge on the subject.
Just for the record the US never asked Canada to go to Iraq. They only ever asked us to go to Afghanistan to which the courageous Cretien boldly replied yes.
[updated Tue Jul 22 19:45:23 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 19:45
Tom Good
Foxer:---May I apply your reasoning to Zimbabwe and should we go in there for the same humanitarian reasons ??????
[updated Tue Jul 22 22:57:58 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 22:57
MRM
Tom - I don't recall Zimbabwe harbouring, funding and otherwise assisting terrorists who then attacked N America killing 3000 people so how is that the same? That said if the situation does not change there soon the UN will switch from peace keeping to peace making and go in lead by the African Union UN member states. Remember under the Liberals Canada provided that force with 500 armoured personnel carriers and all the associated weaponry in case of just such a scenario.
[updated Tue Jul 22 23:12:53 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 23:12
Foxer
You can if you like - or darfur if you prefer :) But we didn't go to afghanistan for humanitarian reasons. We went there to blow up some people that really needed to be blown up.
Along the way, we destroyed a lot of the infrastructure and the gov't of the country as well. That makes this more than just any old 'humanitarian' issue - it makes it OUR humanitarian issue.
This isn't like serbia - we didn't go to get 'in between' two groups fighting. We went to knock out a group that directly attacked an ally and killed canadians in doing so, and had done so before and would likely do so again.
Which is why the UN backed the whole thing. We sure didn't go alone.
But we have to clean up our messes. And lets face it - we made a hell of a mess :)
So, we're going to do the right thing and rebuild. It became our problem when we invaded. The invasion was the right thing to do, and cleaning up is the right thing to do, which includes providing humanitarian aid and reconstruction to create stability.
Iraq is a WHOLE nuther ball of wax :) but we're not in iraq. And realistically, despite the fear mongering of some, we never were going to be. Bush wasn't pissed we didn't go - he didn't want or need us to go. He was pissed we spoke out against it and were critical. But that's his problem.
[updated Tue Jul 22 23:39:04 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 23:39
Bernie
Tom, I don't like butting in into other peoples discussions, but I have to say i agree with your observations exactly.
The points you raise are about policy. I, and I believe you, don't give a fig about which person or party is engaged in those things. If it were the Liberals, NDP Green or Bloc we would say the same thing. It's the deed that's wrong not the person or party. it just happens that this party is in power at this time , and this is the party that has the power to change things at the present time.. To answer an argument by referring to another party or to past policy is ludricrous. and such partisanship destroys all credibility.
To go into Afghanistan was a terrible mistake and to continue the mistake is even worse.. We had no business there and any party the supports us still being there is wrong and is not what I would vote for. Any government that supports that despicably corrupt administration in the US has no sense of justice, honour, or decency., and should be turfed out.
Just this one single, solitary item alone would turn me absolutely against this government; that is their lack of outrage in the Khadr case. Anyone who is not outraged by such injustice, such violation of human rights, has no right to hold any elected office. To me it's unbelievable, it's unconscionable, because no one with a human conscience could support that.
I have to stop here before I get angry. :-) and leave the other issues till later
[updated Thu Jul 24 07:38:29 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 07:38
MRM
Bernie – You are certainly entitled to your opinions but I suspect that they are based on misinformation or a lack of it? If they are not and you are fully informed on these issues but still feel that the Taliban regime should have been left in place so that they could continue to support Al Qaida who in turn would continue to plan and execute terrorist attacks throughout the Western world then nothing I or anyone else says will change your mind.
I agree with you that the current US govt is a corrupt and incompetent bunch but no one is “supporting them”. The simple fact is that they are who they are we must get along with them to some degree no matter who is in power. We do so in pursuit of our own best interests, not theirs. To take some utopian value based stance against their misguided policies such as the war in Iraq would only serve to harm us domestically. That said the Afghan Mission was a UN mission and it was a long time coming and not solely a result of 911. The UN had repeatedly warned the Taliban to clean up their act and their failure to stop terrorizing others around the world caused their downfall.
As for Khadr, I think that I have given my views in detail in other posts here but my outrage over this issue is that those who are misinformed about the facts of this case would advocate that he be returned to Canada so that he can go free and thus avoid justice and be able to further inflict himself on Canadian society rather than face justice for murdering a soldier. There is no one with a human conscience that should condone that. If you do then perhaps you should be the one to have to look the families of his past and future victims in the eye and tell them that they are wrong for wanting justice and security?
[updated Thu Jul 24 12:32:43 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 12:32
Tom Good
Bernie---Right on.
[updated Thu Jul 24 14:22:20 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 14:22
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Tom , no system is perfect for a country like Canada that is the dream destination of hundreds of millions in other lands. However, you are correct that once a Canadian always a Canadian and I believe we are all equal before the law.
[updated Tue Jul 22 18:43:56 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 18:43
MRM
TPQ - Which Parliamentary committee "forced" the PM to make the apology? Your statement is just nonsense. It was in their per-election platform to make these apologies. Just like your statement about Paul Martin who took exactly the same approach to Khadr as the current govt is. Martin had three years to request extradition and not a peep. We do have laws to strip people of citizenship but out liberal appointed bureaucracy is unwilling to use them.
[updated Tue Jul 22 09:31:51 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 09:31
MRM
Tom - No one "controls" the speaker. He is an elected MP (Liberal at the moment) with a mandate to control the House but is completely independent and does not report to the PM or any other Govt official.
While neither the Grits or Tories are where they would like to be in Quebec, every poll indicates that the Liberals are in deep, deep trouble.
Not sure what you mean by "rights of Canadians becomes a rather arbitrary application re Martins and Khadr". Martin refused to follow the advice of Foreign Affair and tied their hands to the point where the only way to help her, in spite of herself, was to have senior ministers and the PM intervene which was done. How much more could have been done for her? Khadr murdered a soldier. Canada has NEVER been successful in extraditing anyone from the states that has been charged for murder and it is now govt policy not to try, so whether you agree with the policy or not there is nothing arbitrary about it? He is being treated the same as any other accused murderer. Again though, while we cannot change history, you and others seem quick to forget it. The Liberals did not request extradition because they also agreed that it was futile and would only achieve worsening already strained US relations so the govt of the day is doing what is for “the good of Canada”. It should occur to those who criticize the current govt’s approach that since it was also the previous govt’s approach to await the outcome of the trial and request that he serve his time in Canada that perhaps it is the best or only option open to us?
The Lebanese conflict can in no way be used as a comparison in this case. Those in Lebanon were not being held by a foreign power for trial for criminal offences committed. They were being evacuated from a war zone. These are two completely different sets of circumstances. Just like each case is different and requires a different approach because you are dealing with different governments around the world. A cookie cutter approach to foreign policy does not work. While justice should be blind it is not always so in other countries and if Foreign Affairs were to take the utopian view that it should be and try to impose Canadian values on these countries they will not be successful. Let the diplomats on the ground, who know the situation best determine how to proceed.
[updated Tue Jul 22 09:24:04 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 09:24
Tom Good
MRM: The House controls the Speaker and the Government controls the House even in this minority fiasco. In war, people do get killed as that is the nature of the "game" . Khadr was a kid that you say is guilty so why does he need a trial at all. Kangaroo court ??? In my opinion, it is just the press that is getting Foreign Affairs off their butts otherwise, the Khadr kid could rot in Guatanamo for all some Canadians care. Well, I care !
[updated Tue Jul 22 23:10:00 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 23:10
MRM
Tom - Quite right that the govt controls the speaker, but only in the broadest sense of the word. They do not control his day to day to day actions. The House votes him in and if he does not do his job then a majority vote can discipline or remove him. As for controlling the House, a minority has very little control over the conduct of the opposition within the House beyond relying on the Speaker to maintain order.
As for Khadr while I may believe he is guilty he is still entitled to a trial and that is what he is getting now. But to simply bring him back to Canada is not an option. The US would never agree to that because as his own lawyers admitted yesterday in the press if he were to return he could not be tried here because he could not be charged here. So the current govt, like the last govt are doing the only thing that they can do. Await the results of the trial and then request that he do his sentence here. The same thing that the Aussies had to do.
I care as well, I care about the soldier he murdered, his grieving parents and his wife and three young kids. I also care about the fact that this guy has been trained since he could walk at a Madrassa in Pakistan where the main subject is how to kill Westerners so once we bring him back here we will turn him loose on society to terrorize us once again. If that happens I hope that he is in your neighborhood and not mine when he strikes next.
[updated Wed Jul 23 09:30:40 -0400 2008]
23 Jul 09:30
Tom Good
MRM:---Decorum of the House---The current government , the minority government, has not tried to introduce measures to improve House debate through direction to the Speaker---at least they could try which would give the governing party the moral high ground.
No war is right and soldiers get killed. I have visited the graveyards at Vimy with row on row of sixteen to nineteen olds who also had parents. You say Khadr trained "since he could walk" so you say he was a child soldier. I believe the United Nations has something about child soldiers that possibly you could enlighten me about. Don't worry, there are lots worse home-grown ones around you than you suggest Khadr is and how about Clifford Olsen for a start. If you wish to cite attitudes, how about the continuous bloody love in between the Palastinians and the Israelis or the Irish and the English or closer to home, some of the red-neck whites and the blacks in the southern United States and I am sure Canada is not exempt from such unacceptable atitudes.
[updated Wed Jul 23 10:52:50 -0400 2008]
23 Jul 10:52
MRM
Hi Tom – While they might try and introduce legislation it has little chance of passing and even if it did, in terms of actual control, well that and buck will get you a cup of coffee but not much more.
Tom, I am not trying to be confrontational so please do not take my remarks in that regard but I feel strongly on this subject and believe that you are labouring under some misconceptions due to a lack of understanding about this subject.
Believe me when I tell you that no one knows as much as I that war is bad and that soldiers get killed. Not only have I visited those same sites you mention and many others but I have participated in and lost comrades in battle on more than one occasion. Some of them in two of the places that you cited as well as others. In fact I just lost two friends this past June and just assisted with the burial of another yesterday and will attend a funeral for another next week. So I know the cost of war and it is high. That said it is a job that needs to be done.
The UN child soldier policy you mention deals only with those who are forced to fight for warring factions and the UN’s response is to put sanctions is place against those factions as well as to try and rehabilitate the children involved with the aim of eventual re-integration. This program was initiated and is funded almost entirely by the US. But since Khadr was a wilful participant he is responsible for his actions and the life that he took by every standard of international law. To try and put political pressure on the govt to get him onto Canadian soil just so that he can walk away scot free would be a travesty of justice and an insult to the family of his victims not to mention every soldier in the field.
I do not understand your rationale about there being a lot worse home grown criminals? So by that logic then it is OK to let more onto the streets? If you think that the likes of Clifford Olsen is worse than a well organized Muslim fundamentalist terrorist and the group that funds and supports them then you are either naïve or very misinformed. Olsen and his ilk are cowards by nature. Muslim Terrorists are highly motivated and skilled killers who will willingly give their life to kill as many innocent people as they can. If you doubt that then just pick up your morning paper and you will see the proof. They go for far higher body counts than Olsen would ever dream of and are not nearly as discriminating.
It is easy to look at the photo of Khadr on the news and think that he is just some sweet child caught up in a bad situation but his history and his actions tell a much different story. He is your garden variety terrorist and I bet given the chance he would kill you and your entire family and be quite proud of it.
I am also not sure where I cited attitudes but you are right. Canadians would not and quite rightly should not find those attitudes acceptable any more than they should find the attitude of a fanatical Muslim terrorist acceptable.
[updated Thu Jul 24 01:25:05 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 01:25
Tom Good
HRM:---I feel strongly on this point too. I can see your point of view but I cannot accept it. Khadr may be a little b--tard but he is a Canadian b--tard and he has lots of company in this land. As kids, we usually do as our parents direct and we usually catch parental attitudes like we catch measles and generally fit into the parent's cultural pattern. When the age of reason hits somewhere after the mid teens we call those teenagers young adults and hold them or try to hold them to the expectations of adult behaviour.
You refer to Muslims opposed to our values----cells if you wish----home grown ones such as the Toronto 15 or 20 or whatever they are. There was the home grown group in Britain trying to blow up the subway and there was another group of medical interns planning the same thing---beyond the ability of western thinking and values to understand. In the US, there was the radical cleric charged as the mastermind of the earlier attempt to blow up the parking garage in the World Trade Centre. You are correct, there is a threat from within but nobody wishes to address the likely root catalyst. Muslims as followers of Islam are generally a rather accepting group distinguished by mainstream tradition of tolerance and pluralism, and have been through the ages. Muslims have their many belief groups within Islam as we do within Christianity and , I suppose within Buddhism, Hinduism and the rest of them. There are radical groups and there is one within the Muslim world that is well funded, is state supported, is expanding mighty quickly and is the group causing the trouble for the western world. Petro dollars, of course, are what makes this possible but no country dependent upon the oil would dare say anything nor attempt to control a religious group that preaches against everything a host country stands for let alone challenge the state supported "religion" of a big oil producer----a big "friend" of the west. It is not the Ismali Muslims, it is not the Shite Muslims, it is not the Suni Muslims, it is not the Suffi Muslims. These groups, though, are targets for infiltration and domination by a puritanical varient of Islam known as Wahhabism. The ideological export of Wahhabisim is supported by the Saudi state. Osama bin Laden and his al-Quida followers are Wahhabis. If a mosque is being built, it is likely Saudi money and they have to follow Wahhabism-----if the locals want a mosque, then here is the money but you must follow the Saudi cult. That is dangerous. Instant communications of the modern world allows the Wahhabi mosques to be in the Saudi backyard so they can get out the message they wish. In the aftermath of the Balkins conflict, the Wahhabis were right there offering medical help, food, rebuilding of schools and mosques but follow the Wahhabis cult----they were not too successful with the predominent Suffi Muslims who enjoy dance and song---no puritans there. So you see, we have nice little festering spots within our country and North America generally. Nobody would dare tackle somebody' elses religion because we just do not do that in a democracy. Is there a connection with the Toronto group ???? You bet !
[updated Thu Jul 24 03:19:04 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 03:19
MRM
Hi Tom – I guess we will have to agree to disagree on Khadr? I just do not feel that a technicality in the law should be used to let a murderer and terrorist escape justice and further endanger Canadians in the process just because he is technically a Canadian citizen. I know that none of this matters in the eyes of the law but I say technically because beyond being born here and short visits he has spent his entire life in Pakistan where he was raised in an Muslim extremist madrassah in Peshawar where he was fed a daily fare of anti –western rhetoric and taught to hate and how to kill Westerners and told it was his holy duty to do so. He obviously listened well. What does matter is that when he and his father and brothers decided to go abroad and plan and execute terrorist attacks, in my view they gave up their rights to have the Canadian public come to their aid.
I agree with you about those who are truly of the Muslim faith. Of the over 1 billion Muslims worldwide only a small fraction are radical extremist terrorists. These few have hijacked the faith and are misusing it to their own twisted ends. This has in the past and is happening in other faiths as well but it just so happens that these guys have decided to hate us and are trying to kill us. That said the vast majority of Muslims are a peaceful, kind and generous people.
The only point I would add to your point about funding is that the other source of funding for the terrorists, particularly in Afghanistan is the drug trade. Since the Muslim faith explicitly forbids having anything to do with drugs this is a good example of how these hypocrites have twisted their faith to suit their own ends.
Wahhabisim is a puritanical form of Islam but it does not advocate violence. While the House of Saud and Bin Laden are Wahhabis they are sworn enemies. Bin laden has bastardized his form of Wahhabisim so that he can rationalize his terrorist acts. The Khadr family are practisers of the Bin laden form of Wahhabisim and that is what young Omar was schooled in at a Wahhabi madrassah from the time he was two years old. And yes as you say there are groups festering here. They are same groups that attended those same madrassahs and would be contacting and recruiting young Khadr within days of his release in Canada.
[updated Thu Jul 24 12:36:49 -0400 2008]
24 Jul 12:36
Bernie
This is how I see it. It's about a far bigger picture. Khadr is only a small piece of it and if his name was Smith or Jones I would feel the same way.
First I want to live in a democracy, or as democratic as we with our failings can make it. Everything that detracts form our aim for democracy I object to.
One of the pillars, maybe the basic, one is justice. One of the ways to effect justice is to apply fair and equal applications of laws. One weakness is in making laws that paralell justice. Another is in the application of those laws.
To be fair and just they must apply to all. Not to ourselves, our family , friends or those of òur group`; but to those we think don`t deserve it, the other , the ``bad``.
The real test of one`s respect for justice is in how one wishes to apply it to ones enemies.
If one fails there then one is not just but is only giving lip service to the cause.
Now let`s go from the general to the particular. Let`s deal with the Khadr case.
None of us were there. None of us know exactly what happened. All we have to go on is seing and reading reports and making best judgments based on that.
I will never believe anything emanating from military officials or from government spokepersons. ( the Americans or our own) When you lie to me repeatedly I will not believe your next statement even tho it may just happen to be true.
If you base your opinion on false information then your opinion is suspect.
The report that I find most plausible is that of a soldier at the scene. He said as his men approached the compound thinking all inside were dead when a grenade came over the wall killing one and injuring at least one other. When they got inside there were two stilkl alive. They fired at both killing one, but discovered the other still alive. The soldier said ``I raised my rifle to finish him off`, but another soldier stopped me.`Except for a few seconds Khadr would have been dead and all this would have been mute.
We`ve all seen pictures of Khadr lieing on the ground with three gaping holes in his chest where the bullets exited his body. (he was shot in the back) It was a miracle he survived.
If that wasn`t enough before hed had recouperated he was interrogated by someone who was later convicted of torturing prisoners. He was reprimanded, I can`t recall if it was demotion, or discharge or what.
Remember this happened to a 15 year old boy. There are country laws and world laws that protect war hardebed veteran soldier form harsh treatment. Not only opurs but theirs too.
As I said before of all that I`ve read that is the most plausible. But since I wasn`t there I can`t be sure it`s true.
At least 126 countries signed on to agrements banning child soldiers. There is no such thing as a 15 year old soldier.They have to be 18 or more. If they are fighting for their couintry and are younger they have to be treated differenty , detained and try rehabilitation.. Even soldiers have to be treated right by international law.
For the sake of argument, suppose Khadr was the monster he is painted out to be. Is his treanment just. I don`t have to relate what was done to him and is being done to him. If one is not blinded by hate one has to see the degree of injustice. The well recognized laws are , even laws to protect veteran soldiers and hardened criminals are been broken , very basic rights are violated. If it were members of out family we`d be screaming like hell. If we believe in justice should we not be doing the same when it`s some one else.
To effect justice we have laws. These laws are not black and white. The application of the punishment of a law broken is determined by the circumstances surrounding the breaking of the law. Only yesterday here in Toronto an alleged mentally challanged allegedly person killed another allegedly mentally challenged. Shouild he receive tha same punishment as some who premeditated, planned and stalked and finally killhis victim. The punishment has to fit the circumstances of the crime.
I can`t finish this here, I`ll have to come back to deal with the circumstances of the Khadr case later.
[updated Fri Jul 25 09:08:50 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 09:08
larryl
bernie. You have not tried and convicted Khadr like others on this site simply because he is a Muslim. The U.S. created a new term for P.O.W. so they could transport them to Gitmo and not have to abide by any international laws with regard to P.O.W.s . What exactly is an enemy combatant . Of course they are technically correct since the military action in Afghanistan is not a war but rather an invasion. The captured civilians can't be prisoners of war without a declaration of war and the U.N. would not start a war would they? Some are quick to defend the Americans even though they killed four Canadian soldiers . Was that not far worse than a grenade thrown by an alleged terrorist. Since Kahdr started his murderous career long before the U.N. invaded under the guise of saving Afghanistan from the Taliban the U.S. should accept their role in training and supplying those fighting the Communists for 20 years. War mongers need enemies or they pit one group against another then supply both sides. In order to profit from a so called war on terror they had to orchestrate an attack on their own country to get others to join in their phoney war. If they really wanted to retaliate against the W.T.C. bombers they would have invaded Saudi Arabia where the alleged highjackers came from. You started out saying you wanted to live in a democracy. The U.S. is as far as you can get from that since their present administration cheated
during the last two elections and then lied to the public in order to invade two countries. The truth should not get in the way of Bush,Cheney and their bunch getting rich profiting from phoney wars.
[updated Fri Jul 25 10:23:15 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 10:23
Bernie
I will try to say something about the circumstances surrounding the Kadr affair.
From all indications his father was an agressive, dominating tyrant. Can you put yourself in the shoes of one growing up under those circumstances. By the time Khadr was 15 if he wasn't totally driven by fear of his father, then maube he viewed his father as a hero and was completely brainwashed and inherited the hatred for others. Assuming the worst, the latter, can you blame him. Do you think that he at that age decided to go to Afghanistan and fight on the side of the Taliban? No! He was in that compound by circumstances that he no control over, others caused him to be there. Those others were the most responsible.
Now that he is there what happens? He is in a compoud where the enemy is attacking, most of the others are dead. To him these are the enemy, evil, infidels as his father has brainwashed him. At his age that's all he knows. He probably realizes he is going to die anyway and to fight the enemy to the death is the greatest thing he can do, a sure path to Allah. So who could blame him for throwing a grenade over the wall as the enemy approaches. ( Even tho we know it could have been thrown by the other one who was still alive.)
Is it OK for our soldiers to be captured, tortured and God knows what sentence meted out if they kill an enemy.
We even carelessly kill civilians and many of us don`t speak up, yet when a kid kills an enemy soldier we want to crucify him. What a doubnle standard! What injustice!
What living up to the principles of democracy.
Then what ocurred. He was sent to Guantanamo. Even for captured soldiers that is violation of international law, but more importantly of humane behaviour. They wouldn`t even bring them to mainland America. They created pseudo classifications for them.
Everyone knows that farce. Everyone held and restrained is a prisoner. It doesn`t matter whether they are civilians or soldiers. and all civilized countries honour their human rights. Every individual on this earth has these rights, no matter who they are or what their circumstances. Creating new classifications for them does not alter their the rights that deserve as human beings and they must be treated appropriately.
I feel our humanity has deterriorated when there an unrelenting uproar continually at the cruel, barbaric US administration. I feel ashamed that our government has unceasingly
criticize th US government. Making the case loud and clear so all Canadians realize what has and is taking place.
We are complicit in this in that we are not raising hell about it every day.
[updated Fri Jul 25 13:05:34 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 13:05
Foxer
Bernie, i can empathize with your point about a child raised in a home where hatred is bread into his bones from an early age. And i can see your argument that his decisions are a byproduct of that.
But really - where does that leave us? If that were a valid excuse to commit a crime, we'd have drug dealers claiming that someone got them hooked on drugs at an emotionally vunerable stage in their lives and now they have to steal or rob or kill to support a habit that's not their fault. Would we allow that?
And if your argument is that the kid was so twisted by his upbringing that he couldn't be expected to know that it's not ok to kill people, then what do you propose - letting him back into society? How long till he decides he's going to kill someone else?
It's kind of out of our hands because he's being tried by a foreign gov't for crimes committed in a seperate country, so we have little say - but if you could choose, how exactly would you handle this situation? Let him go?
[updated Fri Jul 25 13:19:03 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 13:19
MRM
Bernie & larryl
Bernie
I agree with the first part of your post regarding the general treatment of citizens. I don’t care what his name is either; I will judge him on his actions. As I have said before Khadr is being treated the same as every other Canadian charged with murder abroad. Whether you agree with the policy of not seeking extradition or not, is one issue but you cannot say that the policy is not applied consistently. I also agree with your comments about the application of justice and that is why I do not advocate bringing Khadr back until after the trial is complete. To do so before would allow him to escape justice by avoiding the charges due to a legal technicality thereby denying justice. That and also because the US would just never agree to it because our laws would allow him to walk free without a trial. That is why the Liberals did not request extradition from 2001 - 2005.
You are right, none of us know what actually happened, so all the more reason to let the trial and the evidence determine what occurred. larryl accuses me of trying and convicting him simply because he is a Muslim. Nonsense. I have stated earlier that only a very few Muslim’s are terrorists. I do personally believe that he is guilty but am willing to let justice take its course. Not only have I not tried and convicted him the opposite is true regarding both of you. You have both tried him and found him innocent. All I am advocating is that the trial should proceed rather than bringing him here before and thus allowing him to get off scot free.
The issue of whether he threw the grenade or not is just a red herring. The law does not care. He was there participating in the firefight so he is responsible for whatever the results are equally as much as the other participants. If two men rob a bank and a guard is killed both are guilty of murder in the eyes of the law even though the one who pulled the trigger will likely get a stiffer sentence. He was a wilful participant so he is responsible for his actions.
Bernie please read the UN resolution on child soldiers because you are labouring under some serious misconceptions. A review of it will show you that it does not apply in this case.
larryl – The term Enemy Combatant was not made up by the Bush Administration and has nothing to with “captured civilians”. It is a term that pre-dates WW2. It is used to make the distinction under international law between Lawful and Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful Combatants, like members of Al Qaida are subject to trial for the crimes they commit while lawful Combatants are treated as POWs. GITMO was invented to circumvent US law not International law of which they are actually in compliance with.
[updated Fri Jul 25 13:47:25 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 13:47
Foxer
You are correct on several points of law MRM - the united nations 'child combatant' law does not apply here at all, and of course the term 'unlawful combatant' has been used in legal terms for well over a century now.
Actually - the whole 'lawful combatant' concept is one i have some issues with. It stems from a time in the past where the theory was "in order to make sure we don't have to shoot civillians, we will all agree that any soldiers, couriers or scouts will wear appropriate insignia or markings. We won't shoot those who do not have those markings". The idea being that this let anyone who wanted to fight put on 'colours' and do so, and anyone who didn't would be treated as a civillian and not 'molested or harmed'. This allowed for more 'civil' warfare to take place.
That really kind of doesn't work as well in insurgent warfare tho. The Germans shot a lot of 'resistance people' who simply didn't have uniforms. Yet they were genuine combatants, often living in the hills and such and not trying to blend with the general population and hide there.
In wars like afghanistan, the question becomes 'is it practical to require every soldier have insignia'? Where would they get them once the war started? You can't exactly say to America "could you hold off for a week? The guy who makes our badges is on holiday."
Nonetheless - like it or not it is the law. They should have instructed the kid that if fighting broke out he was not to participate, OR gotten him an insignia. Then he would have the normal protection a soldier has. As it stands, he may be tried as a criminal and sentenced the same as any murderer or killer. It's not like it's a NEW law or something, this has been around since before america was a country.
[updated Fri Jul 25 14:03:38 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 14:03
MRM
Foxer - You make a good point and the issue of identification was discussed at length by commanders in the field as well as legal authorities for the UN. As I said there are two types of Enemy Combatants -Lawful Combatants and Unlawful Combatants. In Afghanistan if you are a known or self declared member of Al Qaida or a foreign (non-Afghan) fighter you are treated as an Unlawful Combatant. All others are treated as Lawful Combatants (for instance all Taliban fighters) and handed over to the Afghan authorities. There are no Lawful Combatants at GITMO.
[updated Fri Jul 25 14:15:43 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 14:15
MRM
Bernie you have no idea how prisoners are treated at GITMO. They are not tortured or abused and their human rights are respected. You make over the top statements based on emotion, not fact and try to make GITMO sound like a concentration camp when nothing could be farther from the truth. The only reason GITMO was invented was because if taken back to US soil they could not be charged under US law, just like Canadian law and would literally get away with murder.
As for soldiers killing civilians, yes it does happen but the difference is that when we do it is by accident and not intentional and yes soldiers are held accountable for negligent conduct. If you research the subject you will find a good number of trials and lengthy prison sentences have been handed out by the US military since the mission began. I agree that the government should be "Making the case loud and clear so all Canadians realize what has and is taking place." That way you and others would actually know what is going on because by your remarks you clearly do not.
[updated Fri Jul 25 14:00:56 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 14:00
MRM
Bernie- You tend to arrive at your opinions based largely on emotion and assumptions that are not accurate rather than on facts and the reality of the situation. I know that you think that you know the situation because you listen to the volumes of misinformation perpetuated by the left wing biased MSM but you really are not in touch with what is actually happening on the ground either in GITMO or Afghanistan. Your assertion that all military leaders are liars is also telling about your how you perceive issues.
It seems that you would be quite willing to release someone like Khadr into Canadian Society and hope that he changes his ways. Unfortunately those charged with the safety of our population do not have that luxury. They must look at all of the facts and err on the side of caution. To do any less would be negligent. We cannot afford to take chances with the safety of our families and children. We have to get it right every time. They only need get it right once so we must be highly vigilant and extremely cautious.
[updated Fri Jul 25 17:37:57 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 17:37
Tom Good
Bernie---well said.
[updated Fri Jul 25 14:55:11 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 14:55
larryl
tom. We are very fortunate to have experts on international law, the U.N. and warfare in our midst to explain that invading another country without a declaration of war is perfectly O.K. as long as it is sanctioned by that illustrious group of dictators that the U.S. controls . The terms lawful and unlawful combatants have been used for a long time but the P.O.W.s transported to Gitmo are enemy combatants which the U.S. invented to bypass any international laws that only apply when there is a formal declaration of war by one country against another. Afghanistan was invaded by the U.S. for one reason and only one. After having been at war with the Russians for 20 or so years , the Americans who were being paid for supplying arms to the freedom fighters suddenly had no money coming their way since the Taliban destroyed their only source of revenue . Can anyone tell me where an impoverished country like Afghanistan got the money to fight a 20 year war. Bin laden did train what the U.S. now calls terrorists and that includes Kahdr and his family but that was long before 911 . To say that he was trained to kill infidels shows the bigotry that exists in some who believe all Muslims are terrorist and want to kill us all. One day you are a freedom fighter and the next you are a Muslim terrorist .
Bernie seems to have the same non-partisan attitude you have and makes a lot more sense than our experts.
[updated Fri Jul 25 17:32:03 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 17:32
Tom Good
Larryl: Of course you are right about the designation about "freedom fighter" and "terrorist". The same thinking applies to wherever there is a conflict going on and upon which side of the divide you may be standing on. Look at the designation of Louis Riel in our own country----a hero to some and a revolutionary to others-----if you win, you hang him. The same applies to the American Revolution or the "troubles" in Ireland.
Supposedly the justification for blowing up Afghanistan was because WE were attacked by a group of predominately Saudi Arabian nationals flying into the World Trade Centre. Is that in Canada???? If they were Saudi nationals, they were of the Wahhabis cult---the same as the Taliban government of Afghanistan and the same as Osama bin Laden and his group of al-Qaida. that were given "sanctury" in Afghanistan. If I remember correctly it was all about bin Laden initially........"we are gonna git him" but now he is forgotten conveniently as that has, so far, been a failure and justification has morphed into something else. Afghanistan is goegraphically strategic to stability of the oil producers to the north and to the west. Really, the conflict in the Middle East is more about securing the oil supply for the US-----Canada is self sufficient in oil so really we have to justify Canada's involvement as the great humanitarian effort to frre Afghanistan from the Taliban and try to install some semblance of democracy----a 20 to 30 year objective and how many more deaths? It is much easier to build a bridge, drill a well, build a school or medical clinic than to build a democratic government or build an uncorrupt civil service or build an uncorrupt judiciary or build a respected police force in a largely illiterate land. In the current issue of TIME magazine there is...."Afghanistan--The Right War---Why the West is failing there, and what to do about it". It is worth a read.
I just know that I will hear........"the Liberals took us there" but who is in the driver's seat now? Anything else is HISTORY and we cannot change a word. Is the "driver" the same guy who was saying we should go into Iraq with our neighbours???
[updated Fri Jul 25 18:56:15 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 18:56
MRM
Larryl & Tom
larryl - You are clearly labouring under some misconceptions. You keep repeating the same old tired inaccuracies. The term was not invented by the US, it has been around for decades. You can keep on saying it but it won't make it true. There are two types of "Enemy Combatants" "Lawful" and "Unlawful". The international laws that I assume you are referring to DO NOT require a declaration of war; they require only a UN Security Council sanction, which the invasion of Afghanistan has. Your argument is not even logical. How would “inventing” the term allow them to “bypass” international law?
I have said over and over that I do not think that all Muslims are terrorists so this has nothing to with bigotry but perhaps some ignorance on your part? The Afghan Russian war was 10 years long, not 20 by the way (79 to 89) and funded largely via rich Arab sheiks like Bin laden. Omar Khadr had nothing to do with that conflict but he was just entering a Madrassah at the tender age of two when it ended.
To call terrorists "freedom fighters" is so ridiculous that this in itself shows your total lack of understanding on this issue. The term implies that these people had freedom and lost it and now are fighting to get it back. Al Qaeda has no country and most are not even Afghans. They are terrorists and come to the country to, yes you guessed it, kill infidels. As for the Taliban, they were the ones denying others freedom. We helped the true freedom fighters defeat them. Remember these are the guys that were holding public executions of people who were not strictly following their twisted brand of Islam. They denied women the right to exist as anything more than third rate servants. So for all of your preaching about social justice I find it odd and somewhat hypocritical that you would support these criminals over the vast majority of Afghan people and your own soldiers?
Anyway you guys can continue to be in denial and continue to spout inaccuracies that you have been brainwashed into believing but it will not change the reality of the situation. It will just make your ill informed worlds seem in order I guess because believing in them, even though they are fantasies fit nicely with the rest of your beliefs.
Tom – As for our reasons for going there they extend well before 911 and the UN repeatedly warned your “freedom fighter” friends to stop killing innocent western civilians all over the globe. It did culminate in the ultimate terrorist attack, 911 but it was not the sole catalyst. . Yes the Liberals did send us there and they were right to do so. No the attack was not in Canada but we have treaties and allies help each other when attacked. That is part of the deal. If we were to just sit and wait for Canada to be attacked we would be on our own when it happened. By your rationale I guess we should have left Hitler in power as well I guess, he never attacked Canada?
By the way, you better have another look at your map. Afghanistan has no strategic importance to oil whatsoever?
Finally Yes the Mission is a 20 -30 year commitment. No one has ever denied that so not sure what the point is there?
[updated Fri Jul 25 20:31:57 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 20:31
Tom Good
MRM---I am sure you can justify anything. Could you give me the date of the Americans blasting Afghanistan and the date of the UN sanction?
[updated Fri Jul 25 21:14:04 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 21:14
MRM
Tom - I am not the one “justifying” terrorists into freedom fighters which is the ultimate in rationalization. I have no doubt that they consider themselves freedom fighters, what is most shocking and disturbing is that you guys agree with them!
If by “blasting” you mean the invasion, the following is the timeline. UN Security Council Resolutions 1267 passed 15 Oct 1999 and 1333 passed on 19 Dec 2000 placed sanctions on the Taliban regime and warned them to stop supporting world wide terrorism. Resolution 1269 passed on 19 Oct 1999 authorized the use of force worldwide to fight terrorism. Resolution 1368 authorizing the use of force specifically in Afghanistan was passed 12 Sep 2001. The invasion took place on 7 Oct 2001. All resolutions were passed with unanimous consent.
[updated Fri Jul 25 21:53:35 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 21:53
Tom Good
HRM--Thank you for the dates. What I have said and continue to say is that we should not have been in Afghanistan in the first place. What is equally shocking is that you agree that war is justified and seem fully satisfied at the cost in Canadian lives----well, I am not and neither do I think it has been justified to kill and maim thousands of Afghani civilians whatever their beliefs. Neither do I think we should be the little buddy to Uncle Sam dutifully following along.
[updated Fri Jul 25 22:52:23 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 22:52
MRM
Tom - You are welcome. What I have said and continue to say is that this is a UN mandated, NATO mission. It is necessary and justified because it had become evident that after repeated terrorist attacks and after repeated warnings by the unanimous vote of the Security Council that they were not going to stop and therefore they had to be stopped. All other means had been exhausted and this was, as force always should be, the last option. Below are there activities up to and post 911.
Attacks ascribed to al-Qaeda include:
Al Qaeda Founded 1998
Jordan Tourist attack (1999)
LAX Airport (2000)
Strasbourg France catherdral attack (2000)
Philippines Rizal Day bombings – 30 bombings is one day (2000)
USS The Sullivans (2000)
Yemen USS Cole (2000)
Paris embassy attack plot (2001)
Singapore embassies attack plot (2001)
World Trade Center (2001)
Post Invasion
Kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (2002)
Ghriba synagogue bombing in Djerba, Tunisia (2002)
Foiled bombings of Western warships in the Strait of Gibraltar (2002)
Limburg tanker bombing (2002)
Kenyan hotel bombing in Mombasa (2002)
Kenya - Attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner (2002)
Riyadh Compound Bombings (2003)
Casablanca bombings (2003)
Istanbul bombings (2003)
Madrid Bombings (2004)
Jordan Bombings (2005)
Algiers Bombing (2007)
Danish Embassy Bombing (2008)
So sometimes war is justified but please do not insult me by saying that I am “satisfied” with the casualty rate. Many of those lost were my friends so I find the very statement repulsive. That said, while never “satisfied” to lose a comrade we all know the job and the risks involved. We also know that the job is necessary. So do the vast majority of the Afghan people.
Contrary to what the MSM media and some low life politicians would have you believe coalition forces have not killed thousands of civilians and certainly have not killed any for their beliefs. It is the Taliban and Al Qaeda that do that. They slaughter entire villages because they are the wrong tribe or practice the wrong form of Islam.
While one civilian casualty is to many the numbers of those caused by NATO Forces are much lower than thousands and closer to about 200 - 300 per year with about half of those killed by the Afghan National Army. In short the difference between NATO Forces and the Taliban / Al Qaeda is when we kill civilians it is an accident. The Taliban intentionally kill about 1000 civilians per year.
[updated Sat Jul 26 00:51:30 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 00:51
larryl
tom. Trying to convince a career soldier that war is wrong is like telling a pedophile sex with children is unacceptable. Neither will stop what they believe is perfectly O.K. Soldiers are trained to kill their enemies and get paid to do it when they can justify it. They claim they are fighting for our liberty and freedom but without armies there would be no war. When all men refuse to kill others wars will stop but some like killing and can get away with it if they wear a uniform. We saw examples of some of the sick puppies in the military at Abbu Graib and even our own in Somalia.
There will always be wars because some lunatic will want to conquer the world and and some capitalist will supply the weapons as long as they can make a buck doing it.
[updated Sat Jul 26 00:53:41 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 00:53
MRM
larryl - No one knows war is wrong more than a soldier. You make soldiers sound like a bunch of crazed killers who enjoy taking human life. Once again a good example that as usual you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
You are right about one thing though, there will always be war but don't worry you're kept safe due to the efforts of others and free to criticize those that protect you. No matter how low life that is.
[updated Sat Jul 26 01:15:06 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 01:15
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Tom, without agreeing or disagreeing with your Afghanistan thoughts, what are the alternatives to soldiers from civilized nations taking over a country that was in the hands of terrorists who were using the country as an extremist Islamic war base.
Its one thing to say things are wrong as most anti war people do but these same people never come up with peaceful solutions that can work against extremists. Going back in history, people tried the pacifist route with people like Hitler and others before and then having to finally go to war and losing many millions more lives than needed to happen. That's one example and it relates very directly to the Taliban and their motives.
[updated Sat Jul 26 07:39:51 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 07:39
larryl
T.P.Q. Since it was the Liberals who agreed with Bush to invade Afghanistan ,you have to support the military action. I wonder if sending U.N. troops only in a non aggressive mission would have been an alternative to the attacks.There are many countries that are far worse but you don't see the Americans invading China, parts of the U.S.S.R. or some of the middle east terrorist states. They chose Afghanistan because they knew the"mission" would last for years without many casualties. They want to profit on the war machine without many body bags and that remote place is perfect to accomplish their goal. The poppy fields are back and the revenue is flowing into the hands of the war mongers. If Al-Queda is to blame for the long list of terrorist bombings should we not destroy that organization rather than invade foreign lands. The billions spent on the war would not have ended up in the pockets of Haliburton and mercenary groups like Blackwater The terrorists need funding so find out where that is coming from and it can be stopped without firing a shot. Greed of arms dealers like Lyin Brain"s pal Karl could be stopped if the Swiss did not provide financial services to dictators . No money flowing and all wars would stop very quickly. The two things required for war are money and men. The weapons of war are manufactured all over the planet but we have the technology to destroy those factories without killing innocent civilians. When we can read a license plate from a satellite miles above the earth we can certainly find the location of munitions plants. Lives are not much of a factor since the planet is over populated according to some.The infrastructure of our cities has been neglected for years but we seem to have plenty of cash to rebuild what we blew up yesterday. War is probably only surpassed by oil when it comes to making money.There are alternatives to invading places like Afghanistan but they would not put all that money in the hands of the war mongers like Bush and Cheney.The cause of terrorism is directly related to American foreign policy. Since there are 45 million Muslims in the U.S. some of them must be extremists but we don't hear of many suicide bombers . When the Bush reign of terror ends the world will be a better place.
[updated Sat Jul 26 10:37:08 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 10:37
Tom Good
TPQ---There is the United Nations and I do not agree that the US can ursurp the UN when it chooses to do so. The UN is the not the most effective body but it is the only world body this planet has. Sanctions have also been shown to have an effect although there appear to be ways around them..
As I have said, I believe the root cause is an extreemist sect of Islam, Wahhabism, centered in Saudi Arabia and state financed from there. If progress is to be made, then the pressure should be on Saudi Arabia but then, they do have oil.
I do not believe we should follow the US foreign policies / initiatives because the US does what it does for self interest. It is still punishing Cuba for nationalizing American interests and it cannot be because they are communist as China is the US's big partner these days in spite of American communist rhetoric and China's human rights record. The tribal areas of Pakistan are more dangerous than Afghanistan as far as terrorists are concerned but I doubt the US will take that on. The US, or I should say the administration of George Bush, is rattling its sabers in regards to Iran in spite of his military saying it would be a no win situation. The US has often done as it wished and often fallen into bed with dictators if it was in their interest and often destabilized foreign governments if it was in their interests---Franco's Spain is an example and they destabilized the government of Chile. I have also said that the Government of United States is unduely influenced by the interests of their big multinationals and one wonders if it is the "government of the people" today.
We live next to the United and derive many benefits from them as they do from our presence but we do not need to be their buddy boy and tag along as we appear to be doing today.
[updated Sat Jul 26 14:13:11 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 14:13
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Tom, The UN did nothing when Rwanda and then Sudan committed atrocious acts of genocide. They did nothing in Bosnia. And the security council as a sum total is not really interested in democracy.
Both the Afghan and Iraqi invasions were/are UN sanctioned admittedly through serious US arm twisting which is why Canada has participated in the Afghan struggle.
I agree about the root cause being the Wahhabi influence on extremist Islam movements. However, the Saudis are moving as fast a spossible to open up the Country and make the sect irrlelevent. Otherwise they will overthrow the royal family and all hell would break loose in the world as these people are absolutely fanatical. In some respects Saudi is a medevil place due to the power given Wahhabiism by King Saud himself as a means of controlling the who Country.
However, and not to be left behind is the ongoing struggle between the Sunni and Shia sects;the wahhabi are sunni and the Iranians are Shia. The Iranians dream of controlling Mecca someday and being the dominent power in the region and they are controlled by extremist elements. That may enlighten you as to why the US and the west needs to be in the picture overseeing the growth in freedom and secular democratic institutions. And this won't happen overnight. The Taliban are still preying on the mostly ignorant Afghanis using violence and religion at the same time to reconquer the Country. Our goals should be to rout them every time they get close to having more control but our lack of understanding about their cruel and violent methods keeps our troops from doing the job that needs to be done which would cause the loss of more troops but which is necessary work in my opinion.
The Pakistani "badlands" situation also needs to be addressed militarily. There is no other way to fight the violence these Talibani use to gain political control of areas.
[updated Sat Jul 26 14:57:36 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 14:57
Tom Good
TPQ----If we regard ourselves or anybody else regards themselves as the the social and cultural arbiters of the world, then, as you say, your remarks are completely applicable. I know the UN does not work as it should but then it will only work as well as the member nations want it to work or NOT work. I also know there are many badly dysfunctional families about and they may be my neighbour or your neighbour. I would be most reluctant to offer them advice or, in some cases, step between the factions in the family. I would be inclined to contact the authorities and suggest they get them some help. On the world stage is this not like contacting the UN ?
Have we not got somewhat of a swollen head when we imagine our way is the only way. I believe interference is a good way for our less likeable neighbours to focus their negative behaviour on us. Canada, for its 1/2 of 1% of world population, at one time enjoyed world influence far beyond what our numbers suggest. At one time we were seen as an independent nation of independent thought and independent action. Unfortunately, that is not true today.
[updated Sat Jul 26 17:32:27 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 17:32
larryl
tom. Our military expert has all the answers . The U.N. does exactly what the Americans tell them to do. Bribes to tin pot dictators in the form of foreign aid buys any number of U.N. sanctions .When the American economy needs a boost a war starts in some far off land. Of course war is big business and you might promote it too if you made money from it. You could probably go to work over there with the right connections. There is even more money in Iraq if you get a job with Blackwater. Of course you will be required to kill civilians including women and children. But the money is really good.
[updated Sat Jul 26 00:05:15 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 00:05
MRM
larryl - It is you that think you have all the answers but in reality have no idea what you are talking about. You have pre-conceieved notions about what is taking place over there and the reasons that we went and will not change your mind even when the facts are presented to you. That is why you cannot rebut any of my comments with fact and are reduced to just making your ususal fare of wacky conspiracy theory assertions and personal attacks. Kind of sad really.
[updated Sat Jul 26 07:58:19 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 07:58
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
larryl, you know as well as I that the military "expert" must have permanent shrapnel woulnds and is incapable of making those types of rationale decisions
[updated Sat Jul 26 08:08:04 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 08:08
larryl
T.P.Q. I doubt our expert has ever seen any action sitting in his Public Relations office in Shilo. Doing all that research for propaganda purposes is strenuous but the only injury you might sustain is carpel tunnel from all that typing. The radiation from the monitor might cause a little damage to a brain weakened by all that brainwashing.Of course we have no idea what we are talking about when it comes to another madman like Hitler invading other nations.
[updated Sat Jul 26 10:59:21 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 10:59
MRM
larryl - Next time you feel the urge to email me apologizing for your poor conduct, don't bother. Posting personal information about me on the blog is the ultimate in low life scumbag tactics but of course you cannot even get that right. You told me in your email that “My pet peeve in life has always been people who think they are smart enough to say things that are not always factual and fool people into believing them.” Well you appear to be quite adept at that. I do not work in Shilo and I certainly do not work in public affairs anywhere. And by the way my name in not Murdock either.
As for seeing action, I have the medals and yes even a few shrapnel wounds to prove it. You on the other hand have not and never will see any action in life because you have not got the courage to stand up for what you believe in. Instead you are a sad excuse for a man who is reduced to hiding behind the safety of your keyboard making personal attacks like a common gutter snipe and trying to trick people into confiding in you so that you can use it against them later. But you are so transparent that you are not even any good at that.
[updated Sun Jul 27 07:41:03 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 07:41
larryl
mike. You had better read that message to you again. I did not apologize for anything and sent it to keep that conversation from being read by any body else. Not to spread false information about you or I would have posted it here for every body to read. My subsequent post asked a couple of questions to find out if you actually do benefit from our participation in Afghanistan. You answered those questions and have denied working in Shilo but you could be employed by the military at some other location . I asked for your military expertise about a PSP but you did not answer that either.Could I be correct now referring to you as Miike rather than M.R.M. which seems to be a convenient way to hide even your first name. Mine is right there in front of you and not hiding behind my keyboard. You have provided personal information about yourself for every one to see. Why you now accuse me of trying to trick you so I can use it later seems far fetched since you are quite proud of your military expertise and knowledge. The best way to answer a persons questions about you is not to attack him but simply answer truthfully about what you actually gain from this phoney war.
[updated Sun Jul 27 11:03:38 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 11:03
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
larryl, that guy is a cancer here and is best ignored. He has produced mor elies and innunedos and slanted pieces than people on any other blog I see.
[updated Sun Jul 27 14:21:56 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 14:21
larryl
T.P.Q. The second mistake I made was to reply to one of his many posts addressed specifically to me. The first was to starting a conversation with him in the first place. He first accused of us concocting some scheme against him. Now he accuses me of posting false information about him by sending him a personal message . His evidence is from July 25th but if you check the name calling goes back to May and June. If I check his conversations with you I will find more evidence of name calling and insults started by him. You were quite right to stop talking to him which he thanked you for not only once but twice.I guess he really needed some one to talk to. I do recall a response from him telling me what he gets paid by the U.N. is none of my business but in his mind that is not profiting from our role in Afghanistan. He is just doing it out of the kindness of his heart to help rid the world of Muslim extremist terrorists.
[updated Sun Jul 27 14:53:28 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 14:53
MRM
larryl - Your first mistake was sneaking around trying to find dirt on other bloggers. Your second mistake was getting caught. Your third mistake is lying about it. The info you have been spouting could not have all come from my posts as you claim. Where did the name Murdock come from? Or the stuff about PSP in Shilo?
You won't have to worry about responding to me anymore or the others if they are smart. Now that you have been caught and exposed as a sneak and a liar with no morals or integrity who will sink to any depths to insult someone. Everyone here now knows what you are really like and would do well to steer clear of you. You and pornel have a nice life. You both deserve each other.
[updated Sun Jul 27 15:07:25 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 15:07
larryl
mike. Your unfounded and unproven accusations are surely proof enough that you can not justify your comments without resorting to lies . Claiming I am a wacko conspiracy theorist and coming with this stuff is very ironic.You will never find proof that I am trying to dig up dirt on others since none exists.You are the only one who sees personal attacks in other peoples comments. I am sure I will have a nice life even though it is boring . You should stop giving people ideas about researching others. Some wacko conspiracy theorist might actually do it.
P.S. Do you still deny your dislike of Quebecers or is that another one of the things I made up about you?
[updated Sun Jul 27 15:45:45 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 15:45
MRM
larryl – A quick review of your past posts will confirm to you that it was you and not me that named the town. Also if you did not use sources outside of this site how did you come up with the name of that town, the fact there was a base there and an organization called PSP with someone with initials MRM working there? I certainly never mentioned any of that.
I listed the personal insults of which you only tried to deny two of them so you must agree with my assessment of the others at least?
As for researching others I guess it is too late; some self described wacko conspiracy theorist is already doing it. Anyway I have said all that I am going to say on this subject.
On another topic, I do not hate Quebecers. What have I ever said that makes you think that I do?
[updated Tue Jul 29 07:51:10 -0400 2008]
29 Jul 07:51
larryl
M.R.M. I believe I did say I was taking your advice and doing research on the latest casualty's funeral when I found information on Shilo. I don't know why you bring this up again and won't give it up.I have sarcastically referred to myself as a "wacko conspiracy theorist" because that is what many choose to label me and others who only seek the truth. I am surprised you didn't bring up the name calling and insults and who started that. Your attitude toward the east and Quebec in particular might be interpreted as intense dislike{hate} by some even tho you have not come right out and admitted that. I have said I would try to have more civil conversations but It seems you want to go back to that kind of debate. I am not interested and will limit my responses to others who are not either.
[updated Tue Jul 29 08:42:03 -0400 2008]
29 Jul 08:42
MRM
larryl – I do not want to return to that kind of debate. Let’s agree to drop the whole thing and move on. We have had some good discussions in the past and think that we still can in the future if you are willing to do so? All I ask is that we stick to the issues.
I don’t know what gave you the impression that I hate Quebecers or Easterners? I cannot think of one comment that I have ever made would leave anyone with that idea?
[updated Wed Jul 30 08:52:06 -0400 2008]
30 Jul 08:52
larryl
M.R.M. It is quite possible I read more into your comments or even got other posters sentiments mixed up with yours .We should as you say now try to restrict our comments to the issue being discussed so what ever was said before should be forgotten and we should move on to new debates . If you were away for a couple of days you might like to read the comments in Greenfish66 since the debates have been quite interesting. You might also use the correct spelling of people's name as a sign of good will even to those we disagree with the most.
[updated Wed Jul 30 09:24:50 -0400 2008]
30 Jul 09:24
MRM
larryl - Agreed. lets go forward and leave the past behind. I will certainly read Greenfish66's comments and others when I get a chance. I'll think about the name thing. This was in response to the blogger formerly known as parnel's intentional misspelling of others names such as "Regina Beach Bum" and his vehement, bigoted and sometimes obscene anti western remarks. I thought a little of his own medicine was in order. I guess it worked?
[updated Wed Jul 30 17:22:32 -0400 2008]
30 Jul 17:22
larryl
M.R.M. I have been taking your advice and doing some research on different topics. You find the darndest things with a simple click of a mouse. I have found a couple of interesting sites on Harper that are quite negative and will probably find as many about Dion when I get to him. The Harper Index is a leftist group that does not like Harper. They put information on their site that is definitely not very flattering so we have to decide what the truth might be but it provides a basis for starting an investigation of what the facts are. Other sites and articles provide more opinions about Harper and some of his history . The "Alberta Agenda" authored by Harper and "The Calgary School" that links him with Tom Flanagan are very enlightening to me since I have not researched Steve as he was known when he first ran for public office.A couple of interesting articles in "The Walrus" by Marci McDonald were very interesting. This research thing is taking away from my time on this site but I have learned some interesting stuff. Now I have to find out if they are all true.
[updated Wed Jul 30 17:51:55 -0400 2008]
30 Jul 17:51
MRM
pornel - try looking in a mirror you will see someone who is far worse. At least we agree on one thing - you should not respond to me because you have no honest or civil answers anyway, just like your sneaky, underhanded friend.
[updated Sun Jul 27 14:53:49 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 14:53
MRM
TPQ - So the I guess that the high road was short one and you are back to just plain nasty old parnel again. I knew I would'nt last long.
[updated Sun Jul 27 07:25:17 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 07:25
larryl
Tom . The Russians were in Afghanistan for 20 years and we will be there just as long if Steve YoHarper has his way. More Canadian soldiers coming home in body bags .I believe we are long overdue for another friendly fire incident but as long as the Americans are in Iraq I guess we can feel a little safer. Does that article you mentioned come to the conclusion that we don't want the war to end since so much money is being spent there. First you blow it up and then you rebuild it so you can blow it up again. Great little money maker war is. Of course all those poor illiterate peasants will now be able to read when they are blown up as a result of unexpected consequence of the War on Terror.
[updated Fri Jul 25 21:47:53 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 21:47
MRM
larryl - Do you red my posts or do any research of your own before making some of the statements that you do? The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan commenced on August 7, 1978 with the deployment of the 40th Shock Army. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. That is not 20 years and again it does not matter how many times you say it, history is history and your intentional misstatements will not change the facts. The mission will take at least 20 years. That is what the public has been told over and over but obviously some people are just learning it now? Why not ask the Afghans if they want us?
Majority of Afghans Want NATO Troops to Stay: Poll
Alan Freeman, 'Poll shows Afghans want NATO troops to stay', The Globe and Mail, 18 October 2007
"A strong majority of Afghans approve of the presence of NATO-led troops in their country, including from Canada, and want the foreign soldiers to remain to fight the Taliban and support reconstruction efforts. In a public opinion poll of Afghans conducted by Environics Research on behalf of The Globe and Mail, the CBC and La Presse, respondents expressed optimism about the future, strong support for the government of President Hamid Karzai and appreciation for the work being done by NATO countries in improving security. In Kandahar, where the Taliban is stronger and violence more pervasive, support for the foreign troops was weaker, but respondents still want the soldiers to stay. According to the survey, conducted in person across the country between Sept. 17 and 24 with a representative sample of 1,578 men and women, 60 per cent said that the presence of foreigners in the country was a good thing. Only 16 per cent said it was a bad thing, while 22 per cent said it was equally good and bad."
[updated Fri Jul 25 22:07:10 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 22:07
Tom Good
Larryl: There are really several good articles in TIME but the essence of this one is that there has been a little progress in the "quiet" areas. However, "transforming a nation of 32 million people is a task NOT for the West but for the Afghans.......Afghans have the energy, the pride and the competence to lead that process (nation building)). The West, however, does not. It should not waste its money, its lives and its reputation trying to do the impossible. It should invest in what it does well. We do not have the moral obligation to do what we cannot do."
[updated Fri Jul 25 23:10:40 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 23:10
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Right on Tom, we should be investing our troops in border and internal security along with the elimination of criminal types involved in the poppy trade.
The culture and make up of the government should be their decision.
[updated Fri Jul 25 23:14:57 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 23:14
MRM
TPQ - Exactly! The criminal types involved in the poppy trade are the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The sooner we eliminate them the better.
[updated Sun Jul 27 00:22:07 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 00:22
MRM
Tom - I have not read the Time article yet but whoever wrote it has not been to Afghanistan if they are saying that there has only been "a litttle progress is the quiet areas." As for the rest, this is exactly what The UN and NATO has been saying all along so this is no new revelation. The secuity forces provide the nessecary security and the other agencies assist with helping the Afghan people rebuild their society. They Afghans under Pres Karzais leadership are leading the way in this effort.
[updated Sun Jul 27 00:01:19 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 00:01
Tom Good
MRM----...."A veteran diplomat and student of the country on what it really needs.....and why more troops won't help" by Rory Stewart, Kabul since 2002 ! ! !
[updated Mon Jul 28 04:32:57 -0400 2008]
28 Jul 04:32
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Tom, of course you must be wrong to suggest that more troops won't help. Our fearless foreign minister has jsut announced two hundred more troops for the Afghan theatre.
That maybe the Country's needs to help with the opium harvest. (SIC) After all, the Country is desperate for foreign exchange. We need to simply bomb the enemy and any villages that support them. Instead the Taliban is going around and striking fear in the hearts of villagers and forcing them to support their goals. Fighting a war without substantial goals of defeating the enemy on any front is ludricoius and Canada is falling into the trap that has caught many a saviour and invader of that Country. Where are our diplomats when it comes to threatening Pakistan for not stopping the Taliban inside their borders. The crooked Pakistanis are getting paid off by the opium traders and letting the Taliban roam freely inside their Country.
The 200 additinal troops should be supported by big bombers that will strafe any Afghan or Pakistani village that supports the Taliban.
That's how you win a war.
[updated Mon Jul 28 04:46:51 -0400 2008]
28 Jul 04:46
larryl
Sure am glad we have the experts to correct my mistakes. Of course a mistake is not quite the same as lying if I am not aware of the facts . I get criticized for not knowing what was none of my business in the first place. It seems that Canadian involvement and dying on foreign soil is now acceptable because the public has been informed that is how long the mission will take. One more Canadian dying because we want to stick our nose in another country's mess is not acceptable to me and most Canadians. Anyone who believes a poll of 1600 in a country of 32 million is really grabbing at straws to justify invading another country. The Taliban took control of the country in 1996 so my statement that the Russians were there for 20 years might have been incorrect but the country was involved in civil wars until then and that means 18 years of continuous conflict which is not that far from the 20 that I mentioned. Some people's life revolves around the military and wars but mine does not. I do know that not one Canadian would have died if they had not taken part in a phoney war on terror in the first place. The Bush invasion of Iraq was planned in 1991 but they needed an excuse to launch it and they created that on 911. Lies and foreign intelligence reports started the U.S. invasions and will soon lead to war with Iran. YoHarper will if given the chance send more of our troops to die on foreign soil to help the war mongers make more money.
[updated Fri Jul 25 23:42:38 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 23:42
MRM
larryl - You said that the Russians were in Afghanistan for 20 years. I pointed out that you were incorrect. Then you said it again. You did not say that there was twenty years of conflict. You said that the Russians were there for twenty years. That is lying according to your strict code of moral conduct. I guess the old saying that what goes around comes around is true. So is the one about people in glass houses throwing stones.
Again you misrepresent the facts. The twenty year comment was in response to those who were inferring that this fact was somehow being kept from the public and had nothing to do with justification for the war. But of course because, as you admit, you are not informed so you have nothing else to offer to the discussion except to twist facts. Like your bizarre comments on the poll? Since most polls in this country of 33M people are made up of a sampling of only about one thousand then I guess those results are also “grabbing at straws”. I guess Nik would be interested in that fact. Perhaps he should hire you since apparently you are also an expert pollster now? The poll was not used to invade the country which of course you knew and is just another dishonest twisting of the facts.
And finally, only a fool would believe given the glaring evidence to the contrary, that the terrorist threat is phony! If you admit that you do not have all of the facts and feel that it is none of your business how is it that you think that you have all the answers and feel qualified to tell others that they are wrong.
[updated Sun Jul 27 00:27:46 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 00:27
larryl
mike.You are still stuck on this lying thing . Stating opinions that are incorrect without knowing they are is very different than outright lies. I told you before I am a liar and have been for years . I also said I was wrong about the Russians but did not say it again. I said there were civil wars until 96 when the Taliban gained control. I did learn that from research brought about by discussions on this site. I have learned many things here that did not interest me much before I joined this blog. They were taking place in foreign countries and I like to mind my own business which if we did that as a nation we would not be involved in Afghanistans and 88 Canadians would not be dead. Polls in this country are conducted by Nik and others but the answers they get are not influenced by a threat of any kind to those who choose to answer. Besides a good pollster who asks the right questions can influence the answers to suit his original goal. I answered one yesterday from Angus Reid
They had questions about global warming that would now indicate Canadians are concerned about that issue but my main concern like most is climate change not global warming. What glaring evidence are you referring to with regard to terrorist threats. I don't have all the facts but you certainly don't either.
[updated Sun Jul 27 09:58:21 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 09:58
Bernie
Tom 100% agreement.
The only point to remember re the Kadr case is this.
There is a war. (they are not over there playing tiddlie-winks). In the war a party from one side kills a party of the other side. If captured they must be contained and treated in a humane during the rest of the war and returned soon afterwards. Anything else is not accceptable in civilized society.
It's the way we would hope our soldier would be treated if captured.
There's another element here. That is, it was child. and there should not be child soldiers.
And of course he was in the hands of known torturers. Torture sanctioned and I believ ordered form to top officials both military and political.
Inhumane is too mild a term to describe it.
[updated Sat Jul 26 09:48:36 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 09:48
Tom Good
Bernie: If somebody bombed the s--t out of us then landed troops, I would consider that to be war even if they tried to apply another name. Mind you, little Granada was a disciplinary action----talk about throwing your weight around but the US has assumed the mantle of world policeman rather than allowing the UN to do its stuff, slow as it is.
In spite of his shortcomings, Chretien's quote of..."the last I heard we are still a sovereign nation" was excellent but the current administration seems to want to do everything to please George and will end up getting all of us bitten.
[updated Sat Jul 26 14:28:14 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 14:28
Foxer
Tom - nobody bombed HIS country - he was here in Canada. He and his father chose to go fight. It's not like they were Afghani and happend to be there at the time.
Oh - and I notice that Obama is demanding troop increases in Afghanistan to continue the mission. Are you suggesting that obama is also a "bush wannabe"?
And perhaps you did not notice that the liberal-lead commission sent to study the best course of action also recommended we stay there. And it was the liberals that joined the original invasion.
If Libearls AND cpc AND nato AND the un, AND the republicans AND the democrats all figure we should have gone and we should be there now.. how do you possibly justify the idea that this is somehow 'bush's' fault or his plan?
Afghanistan isn't Iraq you know.
[updated Sat Jul 26 17:39:35 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 17:39
Tom Good
Ah, Foxer: I gives on a good feeling to join the ranks of the self appointed righteous. 9-11 was manned by Saudi nationals and not Afghani.
[updated Sat Jul 26 19:30:30 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 19:30
larryl
tom .The insults and name calling are soon to begin if you continue to point out the truth . I can understand our military expert promoting war since he is profiting from it but can't figure out others doing it . Maybe he has shares in some arms company. Obama might have figured out that more troops might end this unwarrented military action sooner rather than keep it going for another 20 years. Of course he doesn't run Haliburton so he might want the phoney war to end as soon as possible. The real terrorists have 6 months left in their reign unless something major happens . If I lived in the States I would be very worried what the madman might have planned next to stay in power. Iran probably has a lot more to worry about.
[updated Sat Jul 26 20:10:32 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 20:10
Tom Good
Larryl: As in Canada during an election campaign, we hear all sorts of things which are not necessarily so and the same is true in the States. Obama and McCain are trying to garner the most votes and appeal to all and sundry including the LARGE military industrial complex that you do not antagonize at this juncture. Yes, if George W had his way, he likely would commit the US military to Iran but his military advisors have told him, according to the American press, that such an action is unwinnable---hopefully, that will stop him.
[updated Sun Jul 27 00:00:53 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 00:00
MRM
Larryl – The insults, as usual were started by you a few posts ago and continue in subsequent posts. It is unfortunate that since as you correctly point out, you are ill informed on this subject and have nothing substantive to offer to the discussion that you chose to resort to insults. I guess because you are still smarting form being caught fibbing. It must be embarrassing, especially after making such a big deal about how honest you always are. To assert that I am promoting war and profiting from it at the expense of my comrades lives is truly a low life comment and not worthy of further comment except to say that it is rather sad and childish conduct on your part
[updated Sun Jul 27 00:53:50 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 00:53
larryl
Mike Or M.R.M. You accuse me of starting the insults but don't bother to give specific examples such as time and date that are easy to find. You stated in previous posts that you are going to Afghanistan next year to work for the U.N. Are you going on a volunteer basis or are you going to be paid . Are you presently employed by the Canadian military in Shilo to perform the duties of an enlisted person who is in Afghanistan. Simple questions . I doubt I will get an answer since it is
" none of my business". As our resident military expert maybe you could tell me what me what a "PSP" is and what his duties are.
[updated Sun Jul 27 09:32:46 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 09:32
MRM
larryl – if you don’t know when you insult someone or not you must do so much of it that it just comes naturally to you. Here are your comments:
Fri Jul 25 17:32:03 EDT 2008 you called me bigot with:
“To say that he was trained to kill infidels shows the bigotry….”
Sat Jul 26 00:53:41 EDT 2008 You compared me to a pedophile with:
“Trying to convince a career soldier that war is wrong is like telling a pedophile sex with children is unacceptable.”
In the same post you called me a murderer with:
“some like killing and can get away with it if they wear a uniform.”
Sat Jul 26 10:59:21 EDT 2008 You questioned my intelligence, honesty, integrity and courage with:
“I doubt our expert has ever seen any action sitting in his Public Relations office in Shilo. Doing all that research for propaganda purposes is strenuous but the only injury you might sustain is carpel tunnel from all that typing. The radiation from the monitor might cause a little damage to a brain weakened by all that brainwashing.”
You did it again on Sat Jul 26 20:10:32 EDT 2008 with:
“I can understand our military expert promoting war since he is profiting from it but can't figure out others doing it .”
I do not care about the insults but as for my personal situation I will say it once again, to research another blogger and then post what you think is their personal information on the blog is as low a scumbag tactic as there is. Particularly when you cannot even get the right person. I know the person you are referring to and he is a good person but it is not me you dimwit.
Just so you are aware I am flagging your last post as inappropriate because I believe that you have crossed the line regarding the bounds of decency so I am asking Nik that if you continue your nonsense to cease your privileges on this site.
[updated Sun Jul 27 10:00:18 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 10:00
larryl
mike. Again you take my comments about no one in particular as a personal attack. I did not compare you to a pedophile nor did I call you a bigot . Saying that some sick puppies in the military like killing and can get away with it is hardly aimed at you. Do you remember the pictures of our military in Somalia.He seemed to be enjoying the torture he was inflicting . If you consider those personal attacks that is your problem not mine. Now you threaten to have my priveledges revoked because you don't want to answer simple questions. You have told us who you are not but have not denied that you will go to Afghanistan for personal gain or that you do not work for the military for pay .You denied working in public relations but could very well be doing some other job for money. Attacking me and suggesting I research personal information might indicate you have something to hide. The next time I don't think anyone else should read something I will post it for everyone to see so you won't think I am up to no good. Your opinion of me thinking I am smart enough to find some individual you know by doing research is quite a surprise. I thought you knew I never do any research about anything.
[updated Sun Jul 27 11:43:06 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 11:43
MRM
larryl - Now you are just being coy as well disingenuous and downright dishonest. Besides being a murderer, a bigot, a pedophile and war profiteer along with having no morals or integrity you must also think that I am stupid. You did compare me to a pedophile. Your comment is clear and unmistakable and was clearly directed at me since I am the only soldier in this conversation that either of us knows of (unless you have snooped around someone else’s background?). You also did call me a bigot since I was the only one who made the comment about terrorists being trained to kill infidels. You did not mention the other insults I cited so I will assume that you admit to those so why not have the courage to admit to them all instead of saying them and then lying about it after the fact? Aren’t liars your “pet peeve”?
So now you are also trying to deny what you are up to. You first of all came up with someone named Murdock and that was the wrong person. Then you came up with someone working for PSP in Shilo and that was also the wrong person so it is obvious that you are sneaking around trying to find out about me. You can have only one reason for doing that which you have already demonstrated and that is so that you can use that information to perpetuate further insults and tell further lies about me. Now that you have been caught in the act can’t you at least be honest about that? Since it is so obvious why not just come clean about it? Do you think anyone reading this believes you? How else would you have come up with the erroneous information that you have unless you were sneaking around looking for it so just fess up. More lies just makes you look worse than you already do.
The fact that I will go to Afghanistan and get paid (by the UN not the military, another fact that you got wrong while doing your “research”) is not the point. The point that you accuse me of wanting to continue the war and violence so that I can profit from it is what is the insult and a low life comment.
I owe you no answers or personal information on me so mind your own business. Why don’t you tell everyone about your personal life or would we find it to boring? Why not ask some of the other bloggers here how they would feel if they knew that you were skulking around prying into their personal affairs? Which I am sure that you are because if you will do it to me you will certainly do it to others and likely already have.
By the way I don’t think that you are smart enough to find someone since you obviously made quite a fool of yourself trying to find me.
[updated Sun Jul 27 14:43:41 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 14:43
larryl
mike. Your obvious paranoia about your personal life leads me to believe you have something to hide or are ashamed of. The name I used in the personal message was strictly a guess at what your name is and was intended to show your negative attitude toward Quebecers might be rooted in your British heritage. It might be Mac or Mc but surely has British roots. Your personal life is of no interest to me and would be of no use on this site. You provide enough info on your own that I don't need to find any more ammunition about you. When I took your advice to do some research and was looking at information about the last casualty's funeral arrangements I found a person who just happens to have the same Initials as you . You hiding behind M.R.M. might lead some to believe that person was you and the question I asked about a PSP was my way of finding out the truth . You are right my personal life is very boring, that is why I waste so much of my time talking to you.With all your knowledge and experience you have much more important things to do but waiting for new job in Afghanistan next year leaves you plenty of time to promote destroying and rebuilding that country.
[updated Sun Jul 27 15:22:23 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 15:22
MRM
larryl – Nice try on the name thing but just not credible since the email that you used it in did not even address the issue of heritage. Another lie I guess, see one begets another and deeper and deeper you get. I have nothing to hide or that I am ashamed of. I just want my privacy respected like everyone else does. Not wanting some weirdo “researching” my background and then plastering all of my personal information all over a blog is not paranoia and I think is quite normal. Your actions on the other hand are a little more than odd. What is next, you will show up on my doorstep and put my family at risk like some kind of stalker? If not you then will it be some third party because you carelessly lead him to me by providing him with my personal information? I am not “hiding behind” MRM anymore than you are “hiding behind” larryl but of course that is just one more ridiculous statement from you. I don’t care about them but I do care about the ones that could potentially hurt my family so please be responsible and just stop?
[updated Sun Jul 27 17:22:18 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 17:22
larryl
Mike . You are really getting ridiculous now accusing me of threatening your family. I have no idea who you are or where to find you except that you live in Manitoba. If you want your privacy respected you picked a strange place to give strangers information about yourself.I am sure someone as smart as you could figure out how to find dirt on other bloggers but I really am not that bright. Neither am I stupid enough to let some jerk goad me into doing the absolutely ridiculous things you have accused me of. We are supposed to be having a discussion not plotting criminal activity. I can assure you that you and your family are in no danger from this "wacko conspiracy" theorist. If you really believe this nonsense ask any other participant to agree with your accusations and you won't need NIK to take away my priveledges. I will delete my profile on my own.
[updated Sun Jul 27 18:00:41 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 18:00
MRM
Larryl – I didn’t accuse of threatening. I am trying to point out to you why I find it so odd that you would “research” me and how dangerous it is to then plaster personal info about over a blog. You have already announced to the world where I live and that in that one small town the other person with the same initials is not me. Do you not see how irresponsible that is and what the potential for harm is? I acknowledge that it is highly unlikely to happen and I do not believe that you are a threat but there a lot of wackos out there. We discuss a lot of controversial subject here and sometimes they get heated. You are right we should be discussing issues not personal contact information about each other.
[updated Sun Jul 27 19:15:59 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 19:15
larryl
M.R.M. Thank you for at least clearing me of threatening you or your family. You have no proof that I was researching you but still suspect that I did.I did try to find out on this site if my suspicions that you are profiting from the war but I certainly did not use any outside sources.I did not announce to any one where you live since I don't know that . Why would I try to find out about your personal info if I already knew where you live. Your comment has unfortunately provided any one reading this that you live in a small town and you have the same initials as some other person who also lives in that small town. I have never been there and probably never will . I don't know much about that small town except that there is a military base there. If it is on the trans-Canada I might have driven through it but have no memory of it so it must be really small or is not on the way to Alberta . I enjoy discussions with others and would not try to dig up dirt on anyone. Some have put their names on their posts so to find info would be rather easy with Canada 411 but to find someone with just their initials or a nickname would be almost impossible. We agreed once before to stop our debates so I guess we should have stuck to our agreement and none of this nonsense would have taken place. I will continue to read all opinions posted but have learned again to reply only to those that will not lead to such heated comments. I am a conspiracy "NUT' as some find it necessary to lablel those of us who asks questions, but I am only interested in revealing what I think is possibly the truth. Can anyone truly believe they have all the facts about anything. Maybe we will find some other topic of interest such as the election that Harper will provoke Dion to defeat the minority. Even that statement is debatable and will wait for another day to allow a cooling off period.Please be assured I would never harm you or anyone else for any reason.
[updated Sun Jul 27 20:05:41 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 20:05
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
larryl,
Again, the best approach to posters like that is to totally ignore them.
[updated Sun Jul 27 20:22:27 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 20:22
larryl
T.P.Q. I will never change anyones beliefs by ignoring them. I have learned things through discussions with both our experts and maybe they have too. Asking questions is the only way I know to get answers. People who have never asked a question never learn much. Why Dad ? is something that might seem annoying at the time but lets us teach the ones asking the question. Hopefully they continue learning as long as possible. Debates even heated ones might serve some purpose.
[updated Sun Jul 27 20:43:18 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 20:43
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
larryl, some types of ignorance are incurable.
[updated Sun Jul 27 21:04:23 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 21:04
larryl
T.P.Q. The most amazing coincidence . I was watching T.V.O. documentary on the energy problem in the U.S. Morgan Freeman the narrator said " A wise man changes his mind. A fool never" . I don't think they are fools so maybe there is hope for them. E2 Energy was quite interesting and informative. T.V.O. usually repeats programs so you might like to watch it if it is repeated. Just googled and find it is six part series. I will have to find more segments to watch.
[updated Sun Jul 27 21:28:06 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 21:28
MRM
Tom - So what? Those Saudis you speak of were in Afghanistan for years planning and executing terrorist attacks throughout the world. Why would we go to Saudi Arabia to find them when they are in Afghanistan?
[updated Sun Jul 27 00:44:24 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 00:44
Foxer
We didn't want to go to war with the afghani. Their crime wasn't the bombing as you well point out. But - they chose to shelter the people who did it, whom they'd been allowing to operate the training camps and financial empire that WAS used. So really, we went to war with al quedia, and we went to war with the taliban because they stood between us and them. The afghani people we didn't want to go to war with at all.
Even under canadian law if by your actions you shelter or allow a criminal to avoid capture, you become an associate to that crime after the fact. This is no different.
But there's no doubt that both parties were in afghanistan when we invaded. The boy in question and his father were not - they chose to go and involve themselves in the conflict.
And I'll tell ya - if I was going to war by choice in a foreign country for some reason i'd be bloody sure to know what constituted a lawful combatant and what didn't, and make sure my son had the protection of the law.
It's not 'self righteousness' - This is basic common sense we're talking about. If someone attacks our country or her allies in a manner as devistating as that, what did you expect? We call them on the phone and give them a darn good talking to? Perhaps a particularly aggressive letter writing campaign and some pamphlet drops? The entire UN backed the plan, and with good reason. And the liberals sent in our troops - it was a combat mission from day one. That's why we went there. And they were right to do so. They also sent them to kandahar, knowing it was a combat deployment. Hence the guns and all :) And again - it was the right thing to do.
Like i said - this ain't Iraq we're talking about. Few people actually like a war. It's a bad thing. But sometimes it's necessary, and when it is, we go.
Khandr had more of a choice.
[updated Sun Jul 27 04:24:40 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 04:24
Tom Good
Foxer: If there is a world policeman, it is the United Nations and not the self appointed United States nor NATO who is suffering from a bad case of arm twisting.
[updated Mon Jul 28 04:39:55 -0400 2008]
28 Jul 04:39
Foxer
The United nations sanctioned and participated in the attack on afghanistan.
Afghanistan was hardly an 'american only' thing, unlike iraq. There's something like 8 countries with significant forces in country and more that have rotated forces in and out, hell even FRANCE is there! So .. with that in mind, you'd have to acknowledge that it's a 'legitimate' bit of 'world policing' as you put it, and not just American arm twisting.
[updated Wed Jul 30 18:42:42 -0400 2008]
30 Jul 18:42
Tom Good
Foxer:---I believe there are a number in NATO who are suffering from seriously twisted arms. No, I do not accept that Canada's presence in Afghanistan is legitimate under any stretch of the imagination but I do accept that Canada's presence is a political decision by both the Martinites and the Harperites that still does not make it legitimate.
[updated Wed Jul 30 22:13:09 -0400 2008]
30 Jul 22:13
Foxer
The UN is not 'nato'. It's the UN.
Canada's decision to go is based on it's international agreements. And that includes its UN agreements.
It's unreasonable to say that it's illegitimate. What you mean is you don't like it. That's not the same thing.
If it's a UN sanctioned and supported action, then how on earth do you claim it's illegitimate? You yourself said the UN is the closest thing we have to a 'world police'. The UN voted on it and accepted it.
You may not agree with it, but that's different.
And if the un agreeing to it, the liberal govt' of the day agreeing to it, and the CPC gov't of the day agreeing to it doesn't make it legitimate, what does?
You do realized that al queda actually did launch more than one attack on numerous countries over the years right? It's not like iraq where they didn't actually DO anything, these guys actually attacked a lot of people. On more than one continent too.
[updated Wed Jul 30 22:27:59 -0400 2008]
30 Jul 22:27
Bernie
Exactly Tom. Martin committed us to Afghanistan to placate George Bush. Any other stated reason is pure fiction.
[updated Thu Jul 31 07:47:43 -0400 2008]
31 Jul 07:47
Foxer
The United nations sanctioned and participated in the attack on afghanistan.
Afghanistan was hardly an 'american only' thing, unlike iraq. There's something like 8 countries with significant forces in country and more that have rotated forces in and out, hell even FRANCE is there! So .. with that in mind, you'd have to acknowledge that it's a 'legitimate' bit of 'world policing' as you put it, and not just American arm twisting.
[updated Wed Jul 30 18:42:44 -0400 2008]
30 Jul 18:42
Tom Good
Foxer: You say...."nobody bombed HIS country"-----OK ,but there is a long standing concept, whether we like it or not, of getting involved if the "general thrust or the principles involved or the rallying cry" is something one supports. I am sure the Crusaders were quite uninvited. Closer in time, there was a Canadian contingent fighting the Franco fascists and their Greman "volunteers" in Spain and they were not vilified on this side of the Atlantic. In the Second World War, there were a great many American volunteers within the Canadian military. I suppose Dr Bethune helping the Maoists fits into the same catagory. In the Korean conflict I recall Chinese "volunteers" poured across the border. In Vietnam, there were Canadian volunteers in the American forces facing Chinese and Russian "volunteers" with the Vietnamese. In the Iraq-Iran War there were American "advisors" and American equipment helping Saddam.
It is a mighty mixed up business of who is crossing what border----if they like the cause, they likely will be there. Seems that 200 more Canadian "volunteers are being sent to Afghanistan shortly but that does not make Canadian involvement right.
[updated Tue Jul 29 16:00:55 -0400 2008]
29 Jul 16:00
Foxer
The 'long standing concept' you mention does NOT include taking up arms against your country's ALLIES.
The crusades (and wow - talk about taking it out of time context) were not fought against those who sided with Britain.
Germany did not enter the spanish war on the side of the enemy. And in the second world war I do not believe Canada was at war with America, was it?
And in ALL of those cases, the 'volunteers' were sanctioned by their respective gov'ts of the day.
A more relevant example would be Benedict Arnold.
And further - those who 'volunteer' are treated as soldiers of whatever country they volunteered for. They are frequently not offered protection by the country they are citizens in.
It isn't even a slightly mixed up business of 'who's crossing what' border. The gov't may allow and sanction it's people volunteering in another military, and if it does - great, go knock yourself out. But A) - they sure didn't here, and no gov't would if you're out to help the ENEMY of your country (we were at war there too at the time after all) and B) - if captured you're going to be dealt with by the other side as if you were one of theirs.
To put it in perspective for you - if a canadian in 1940 went to germany and volunteered for their army, and then committed war crimes, he would have been tried in Nuremburg. Not Ottawa.
I believe the kid deserves a trial. I believe we should observe, to make sure he gets a fair trial. But he chose to go to war against Canada and her allies - and he is accused of committing crimes against one of those allies and was taken prisoner by them. He's going to have to answer to that country for his actions.
That's just the way it is.
Why would we make any special exceptions for him? If Canada and her allies had not been involved in the conflict, I MIGHT say 'maybe we should do something special in this case', but why waste money or time doing MORE than we should for someone who fought on the OTHER side? I don't recall paying any german's soldiers legal bills after ww2?
BTW - Canadians serving in vietnam not only had no help from Canada if captured, but those who made it home got no help or interest from their gov't either. Many were tormented by anti-war protesters and persecuted here, but the gov't did nothing then.
So - if we wouldn't try to get our people back from the north vietnamese, who were REAL torture experts and gave NO trial, why should we try to get this kid back from america, who does actually have a legal system in place?
[updated Tue Jul 29 16:23:36 -0400 2008]
29 Jul 16:23
larryl
tom. Our experts are having a problem with their reading and misquoting what you wrote. I believe you said that if somebody bombed us but then you are accused of saying they bombed "HIS" country . I can't seem to find that in your previous post. The U.S. as world policeman might be a good thing but they are the bully of the world since they have no other super power to keep them in line. Your information on Muslim sects was very informative. I do wonder though if the Americans withdrew their troops from Saudi Arabia if that might lessen the Muslim resentment of them. American's have military bases scattered around the planet and could be viewed as a threat to others simply by being there. History shows that a war with the U.S. usually leads to reconstruction of what they destroyed. Since our cities are falling apart maybe we should provoke them to attack and let them rebuild our infrastructure at their expense. In a previous post to TPQ you doubted that the U.S. could influence the U.N.and it's resolutions. 320 billion in foreign aid since the end of ww2 might be enough to buy the tin pot dictators at the U.N. Another one of my ridiculous conspiracy theories that the U.S. put Hussein in power in Iraq was confirmed by the Iraqi store owner I go to who was there when it happened. Others like the Shah of Iran, Marcos in the Phillipines and now Karzai in Afghanistan were easily controlled by the U.S. To claim that we are wanted there to destroy the country and kill civilians is simply ridiculous. Since our military expert told you the invasion had nothing to do with oil there must have been another reason.Maybe we will find that out some day.
[updated Sat Jul 26 19:21:29 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 19:21
Tom Good
Larryl: Britain gave rise to the Industrial Revolution with coal and iron ore in close proximity to each other and, with a powerful military, became the top dog for 180 years. At the end of World War 1, United States moved into ascendancy and has been the world super power for 85 years. During Britain's reign, she did what she did in self interest and was not in the least bit reluctant to use her military----the US is doing the same and is no better liked than the British were in their day. What is so different today is the electronic age and instant communication where we can see what the camera takes. Britain amassed huge wealth from her dominance but by the end of World War 1 she was a debtor to United States and, as a super power, in decline. Since the second world war, United States has amassed huge wealth and overcome the challenge from the Soviet Union. American corporations own extensive assets world wide. The US maintains a powerful military exactly like Britain and has engaged in costly conflicts pursuing her world interests, like Britain, and now is a debtor to the next super power in ascendancy-----China.----Hopefully, before China is "the world super power" by the end of the next couple of decades, Canada will have re-established her independence in the eyes of the world and not be seen to be somebody else's little buddy boy.
Nobody likes an ocupying military in their land, not the Iraqi nor the Afghani. The official "religion " of Saudi Arabia, the puritanical Wahhabism, does not tolerate infidels well. The terrorist offshoots, the Taliban and al-Qaida use a foreign presence as a rallying cry and that is part of their current appeal---get the foreigners out. All independent commentators say the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan should administer their lands now as they are mostly seen as legitimate by the populace whereas an occupying military is seen as exactly that, an occupying military. Iraq is generally educated and it had a vibrant middle class while Afghanistan is generally illiterate and tribal. During "reconstruction" advisors will be needed but NOT military who manage to provide a rallying point for the insurgents who are largely, but not exclusively, Taliban and al-Qaida. Yes, the two candidates in the American election are politicing and talking of sending more troops----we will see a possible change of tune after their election but it is all politics at the moment. You can throw in NAFTA to that politicing of those two but I suggest we wait.
[updated Sat Jul 26 23:40:06 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 23:40
MRM
Tom - There is one fatal flaw in your Afghan plan. If you were to remove NATO troops, within a week the country would be back in the hands of the Taliban. Those "reconstruction" advisors you would send that would be foolish enough to stay (who are already there by the way along with a lot of NGOs and staff from 17 other Canadian federal govt depts) would be dead within the next week along with many, many, many Afghan civilians.
The simple fact that you fail to see is that the Afghan govt is not strong enough politicaly or militarily to stand on it's own at the moment. That is why a long term committment is needed. If you don't believe me or the govt ask any NGO over there what is needed most. They will all say more troops and more security.
I'm afraid that your plan, while good intentioned and like Mr. Laytons would just get a lot of good people killed.
[updated Sun Jul 27 01:16:06 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 01:16
larryl
tom. Britain , a relatively small country, became a super power and their empire covered half the globe because they ruled the waves .Their motto, "Divide and Conquer" allowed them to colonize much larger countries like India and most of North American. They are now suffering the consequences of their years of Imperialism with their country being taken over by immigrants. Many are leaving their homeland to escape the hordes of non-whites they can not stop from coming since they are British citizens. The U.S. has become the only super power by military means and to stay at the top of the heap will continue to invade other countries to prevent an "Axis of Evil" from forming alliances to control American world dominance. Using lies and deceit they create new threats to the U.S. to permit invading other nations. "You are with us or against us" brought many to join their phoney war on terror. The new "Crusades" being organized by the U.S. are just another form of terrorism since their citizens are terrified of the "extremist Muslims" planning attacks on their country. If they want their country protected that would be difficult since the " National Guard " is in Iraq . How safe would America be with just half of what they spent on invasions being spent in their own country. The other half would have created employment at home to rebuild their crumbling economy. War is a much better way for the war mongers to get
money into their own pockets. Some who benefit from our participation in Afghanistan use any argument to justify invading another country.
[updated Sun Jul 27 09:15:57 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 09:15
Tom Good
Larryl:---I do not believe any one country will remain on top of the heap for long. The US is there now and it would be short sighted to say there is not an emerging super power that will surpass the United States in world prominance or world dominance. I am sure there will be the same screaming and denial as there was from the Brits, as the Americans superceded them, when the Chinese move into that position the United States held. India and the European Union may figure in this musical chairs somewhat in the future too.
Immigrants in Britain have given rise to racial problems due to colour mostly but, I would suggest, there would have been the same problems if all immigrants were white. Their problems are no different to those of the United states with the varying waves of immigration there such as the Italians, the Irish and the Middle Eurpeans----they all entered at the bottom of the socio-economic scale. The "guest workers" of Europe were predominately Turkish for Germany or Algerian for France and their assimilation has been a very rocky road. They will need a couple of generations to work into their new society / culture.
Yes, I believe you are correct to suggest the United States has lost respect in the world with the behaviour of the current administration. Both Obama and McCain have noted this and they SAY their administration will attempt to regain America's stature in World affairs---or words to that effect. It will be a long process. Canada has lost ground, too, in World opinion and that will take time to regain . Easy to lose and hard to regain.
[updated Mon Jul 28 05:13:04 -0400 2008]
28 Jul 05:13
larryl
tom.Good morning. Since more than 30% of the world population lives in two countries they will attain super power status . Militarily the U.S. will always be at the top with there huge collection of nukes. They have in the past created enemies to justify their vast military spending.If they were to adopt a protectionist policy and banned imports from China the expansion there would soon come to a halt. Wal-mart is the largest retailer and their main customer but mostly supply the U.S. market
That economic clout will also keep them at the top .I believe they have reached the point of no return with 9 trillion in debt and will have to take drastic action to stop the flow of capital to foreign countries. Without wars stimulating their economy and taking 100's of thousands off to serve overseas their financial future would look mighty grim. There is an easy way out of all this as they learned from the depression. WW 3 fought over middle east oil and the Muslim extremist threats might blow up half the world but it would not be our half. India and Pakistan , both nuclear powers might be provoked into destroying each other . That would allow the U.S. to remain alone at the top of the heap. More of my wacky conspiracy theories I guess.
[updated Mon Jul 28 09:51:09 -0400 2008]
28 Jul 09:51
Tom Good
Larryl:---Mutual destruction is really not an option for the west, however, the extremist Muslims believe they will go straight to heaven with twenty virgins awaiting their arrival. Do not know what the female extremists await ! ! !
Yes, you are correct, posting large numbers of troops in a country is a form of foreign assistance as they spend their dollars there although the "host" country would be just as pleased to be without the troops.
The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan in the tribal areas is but a line on the map. The Pashtuns live on either side of the "border" and traditionally have moved throughout the area for centuries without the interference of government. The Taliban are essentially Pashtuns.
[updated Mon Jul 28 11:15:40 -0400 2008]
28 Jul 11:15
MRM
larryl - Interesting that the one time you actually research one of your comments and it is by asking a local store owner? Of course it is not rue and I can prove it but maybe you should do some research for a change?
Who claimed that "that we are wanted there to destroy the country and kill civilians"?
You know the reasons that we are there. At least you have been told enough times but just refuse to believe the truth and choose instead to advocate your wacky conspiracy theories.
[updated Sun Jul 27 01:04:11 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 01:04
larryl
mike. My conversation with my local Iraqui store keeper was simply that . A conversation not research. He was the one who told me Saddam worked for Bush senior when he was director of the C.I.A. The U.S. has interfered in other nations affairs and that is why they are hated all over the world. I am not sure but I think whoever used a poll in Afghanistan to claim we are wanted there led me to that conclusion. The fact we are destroying and killing was what I believe we are doing.Being lied to and American propaganda have not convinced me of our real reason for being there but I am open to any proof you might be able to provide. Wacky conspiracies can't be proven but I like many Americans believe their own gov't was complicit in 911 and used that to take away many of their freedoms. Millions of dollars were made on Sept. 10th by using information available to the real terrorists but you can not accept that and label it wacky conspiracy theory.
Why did the director of Fema arrive in New York the day before the attacks.Simply accepting lies without asking questions seems to be what military personel might be trained to do. Compliance to higher ranking orders is demanded and insubordination is not tolerated. Follow orders or face discipline. The 911 truth movement has many educated and qualified people asking questions but all the evidence was disposed of by the real conspirators.
[updated Sun Jul 27 10:35:35 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 10:35
MRM
Tom – First of all the only ones who got the shit bombed out of them was the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Secondly, it is a war. No one credible that I know of is calling it any different.
As for Chrétien’s famous quote we now know that the US never asked Canada to go into Iraq. They only asked us to go to Afghanistan which Chrétien very courageously and immediately said yes to.
[updated Sun Jul 27 00:41:18 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 00:41
MRM
Bernie – One more time, please pay attention. Under international law there are two types of “Enemy Combatants” – “Lawful” and “Unlawful.” Lawful get treated as POWS and unlawful as criminals. The child soldier laws you keep trying to cite do not apply in this case. If you do not believe me look it up but to just keep repeating falsehoods just makes you look ignorant. Don’t you care about being correct in what you say?
[updated Sun Jul 27 00:44:14 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 00:44
Tom Good
MRM: I am sure you are pleased to see on the evening news that there are some placard bearing Canadians concerned regarding detention at Gutanamo Bay. McCain and Obama SAY they would both close the place down but they are in election mode. Secondly, I believe the interest shown on this blog suggests that Afghanistan, in spite of Harper and Dion trying to keep it on the back burner, will be an active election issue in the coming election. I appreciate you assisting to keep this issue squarely before the public where it belongs.
[updated Sun Jul 27 02:07:10 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 02:07
MRM
Tom - You are welcome. GITMO should be closed. I never advocated keeping it open. US laws should be changed to allow foreign criminals to be brought to the US to get justice, which is what both candidates are advocating. This should also be done in Canada, that way when something like this occurs in the future foreign governments can hand our citizens over, safe in the knowledge that they will not be let off without a trial the moment they hit Canadian soil.
That said I doubt that a few hundred Canadian protesters are going to make a difference before the next US election so they may as well have stayed home and out of the rain.
[updated Sun Jul 27 07:08:29 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 07:08
Bernie
Tom, exactly.
Finally we see that someone with some degree of authority agreeing to do the right thing. Unfortunately there were not enough people (not with authority ) to shut it down, even stopping it from happening in the first place. It's a black eye on humanity, an abomination.
Of course the American authorities know that. It's why they placed the prisoners there in the first place. They didn't want them on American soil where it would have been harder to keep their evil activities secret.
That's what all this is about "evil". It's one thing to recognize evil and that occasionally some people who reach political military high office will engage in evil activities. Given the laws of average, and human nature being what it is, that's bound to happen. It becomes disasterous when a large segment of the population don't recognize what's happening and/or don't care. When we close our eyes or don't object and therefore condone and support the continuance and excerbation of that evil.
When we close our because it's happening to someone else,( but we are OK), and we do nothing, we are on the slippery slope.
What is that quote about when they come for your enemy and you do nothing, they come for the other, you do nothing, they come for your neighbour then finally they come for you.
And another famous quotation to the efffect that tyranny flourishes not where bad people do evil things so much as where good people remain silent.
We so many historical naratives to prove that. We don't have to go far back in history where it happen in country that, for the times, was progressive, developed, and educated. ( and may I add Christain.)
It's amazing (and never understood by me) why so many don't so it or if they do remain blind to it. Or maybe they do but for some psychological
reason just cannot accept it.
We all know the evil perpetrated by Milosovic, Karadzic and Mladic. At this late stage their own people must know by now at least some of what they've done. Yet there are thousand out marching to keep Karadzic from to to the Hague. (if they thought he was innocent why would they object'
they wouldn't object, so they know)
We just saw interviews with Bosnian Serbs who not just supported him, make him a hero, honooued him, One had a shrine set up in her house to him. Pictures all over the wall She took a picture of him , kissed it and said, " I would go to Karadzic before I go to God."
I can never get my head around that.That is not an isolated case. There are thousands, albeit not to that extreme.
When those things occur far away in place or time, we regard them as stories, interesting but not relevant. The sad thing is when it hapens here and now we don't see it. or we see it and deny it And even worse we demonize those who bring it to our attention. It's sad really! I guess we'll continue being such disfunctuional humans.
[updated Sun Jul 27 08:07:25 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 08:07
MRM
Bernie – You are right when you cite the quote “about when they come for your enemy and you do nothing, they come for the other, you do nothing, they come for your neighbour then finally they come for you.”
That is why we are in Afghanistan and why we went to the Balkans to fight the likes of “the evil perpetrated by Milosovic, Karadzic and Mladic.” Fantics and murderers have to be stopped for the good of all in the world no matter what form of religeon they come in.
[updated Sun Jul 27 08:31:25 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 08:31
MRM
Hey you guys, here’s your poor down trodden “freedom fighter” friends striking another blow for all that is right and good in the world against the Great Satan. Since you guys told me that the terrorist threat was “phony” I guess that we have nothing to worry about here.
Indian authorities search for bombing suspects
Updated Sun. Jul. 27 2008 7:59 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Indian authorities are hunting for those who might be responsible for a series of bombings that killed at least 45 people.
Saturday's blasts in the western city of Ahmadabad were the second series of attacks in India in two days.
A little-known group has claimed responsibility.
An email sent to Indian television stations just moments before the blasts read: "In the name of Allah, the Indian Mujahedeen strike again! Do whatever you can, within five minutes from now, feel the terror of Death!"
The email's subject line said, "Await five minutes for the revenge of Gujarat."
[updated Sun Jul 27 08:32:49 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 08:32
larryl
bernie. Mark this day on your calender. When you get accused of starting name calling and insults you can find proof of who actually did it first. Telling some one to pay attention and then saying he looks ignorant might be considered insults and name calling. Your opinions of the atrocities at Gitmo and in Afghanistan are right on . You will never convince those who believe we are justified being in a foreign country that what is happening is wrong. Your insights might change the mind of some who are not sure so keep trying.
[updated Sun Jul 27 12:14:30 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 12:14
Bernie
larryl. The accusations I'm aware of and am used to .
Most let others express their point of view and repl;y without such negativity but just express their own. Some can't tolerate truth and reply by demonizing the messenger . And of course there are a few, who like the woman I mentioned in the previous post, who are blinded by hero worship of a person or cause, who will not accept any from anyone. We will never change them. And I don't try. I'll still say what I believe and perhaps a few will find some benefit in it.
BTW , what I write is what not of my own knowledge. It is what I read from persons who where in high position in government, in military and CIA. People who have written of their experiences. Their boks contain pages of footnotes; examples of documents many declassified; others while still classified were "leaked" or where revealed to investigative reporters who have the confidences of high officials in the government.
i have read so many boks revealing the details of how the US governemnt, through it's political and military power has wreaked havoc on the governents and the people other countries. They do it through their diplomats, or the CIA or EHMs or failing that, military intervention. 13 times now they have invaded another country which was not attacking them. Several times they have murdered the leader of another country and have caused regime change of the legitimate leader of countries. They coerce and pressure the UN to do their bidding. The use IMF, the World Bank, WTO and other organizations to dictate to over those countries.
the documents to prove that are there for all to read.
However some prefer to remain blind. We can't help them.
When we try they insult us.
[updated Mon Jul 28 08:53:35 -0400 2008]
28 Jul 08:53
MRM
larryl - No one else will get accussed of starting name calling. You have already earned that moniker and the "proof of who actually did it first" is all over your posts for all to see.
[updated Mon Jul 28 09:02:46 -0400 2008]
28 Jul 09:02
Tom Good
Bernie: On the reason for the choice of a detention centre using Guatanamo, you are correct. The choice was very deliberate so the "detainees" were outside mainland United States and outside the jurisdiction of the American court system. There seems to be another little "secret" out there with clandestine detention centres the CIA evidently maintains elsewhere in the world. It was less than a year ago we were hearing about "overflights". It was also suggested that Arrar was "deported" to Syria rather than Canada as the Syrians could use more persuasive techniques to make the prisoner talk. There was also the suggestion of a rather "blind eye" of the RCMP that resulted in a rather well publicized shuffle at the top.
[updated Mon Jul 28 05:31:36 -0400 2008]
28 Jul 05:31
Bernie
Hi Tom. That's another 'trick' they use . They make new words to offset the negativeness of the actions they undertake. Those words make their unethical actions more palpable to the undiscerning.
"enemy combatants" , "regime change" "rendition" and others are attempt to cover uip the reality of what they are doing.
The fact the our governemnt is not continualy opposing the US actions shows that they are complicit.
Quotes from a paper yesterday'
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that Guantanamo was operating outside the law during the time CSIS agents visited. In a related decision this year, Canada's Supreme Court concluded that Canadian authorities acted illegally. "
"Justice Dennis O'Connor, who headed the inquiry into the Maher Arar affair, warned in his 2006 report that while information sharing is vital for intelligence agencies trying to thwart possible terrorist attacks, it is a "highly sensitive and potentially risky exercise."
"It is crucial that the shared information be accurate and that assessments of it be correct," O'Connor wrote."It is crucial that the shared information be accurate and that assessments of it be correct," "
"He concluded later in his report: "If it is determined that there is a credible risk that the Canadian interactions would render Canada complicit in torture or create the perception that Canada condones the use of torture, then a decision should be made that no interaction is to take place."
"Canadian interrogators were very clearly participating in illegal interrogations and they were providing information to the United States that they knew would be used to further his unlawful detention," Wells Dixon, a New York lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said in an interview."
These quotes are from people with a certain amount responsibility.
[updated Mon Jul 28 09:15:24 -0400 2008]
28 Jul 09:15
MRM
Bernie & Tom
As I have been saying all along the purpose of GITMO is to circumvent US law. Not international law as was asserted earlier. US law says that Unlawful Enemy Combatants (Bernie – not a new term made up by the US as you keep asserting) are to be tried as criminals by a military tribunal. International law also considers them criminals. The “catch 22” is that tribunals for detainees under military law cannot be held on US soil. If on US soil then criminal offences must be tried by a civilian court. Problem is that because the offences were not committed on US soil they cannot be charged under civil law. So if the detainees were taken to US soil they would have to be released. This is much the same situation as the Khadr case if he were returned to Canada. All that said I still think GITMO was a bad idea and changing their laws to allow US based civilian trials would have been a better approach.
GITMO has not been declared illegal by the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court made the US military change the structure of the Tribunals to be in compliance with US law. These changes were made before the first Tribunal was held. A U.S. district court also agreed with the US Govt finding that the Geneva Conventions for POWs apply to Taliban fighters but not to al-Qaeda terrorists. No one is being tortured at GITMO. These are just unfounded allegations with no basis in fact or reality. There have been individual cases of mistreatment and the perpetrators have been disciplined as was the case at Abu Graib. Here is a summary of how they are treated:
“Prisoners are held in individual cells modeled on prisons in the United States, and include a bed and individual toilet. Detainees have rations similar to those of U.S. forces, with consideration for Muslim dietary needs. They are on diets of 4,000-5,000 calories per day, with few exceptions in which the detainees have become obese and are placed on special diets. Each and every detainee is given a prayer cap, prayer beads, and a prayer rug. There are arrows pointing to Mecca in each cell and in all recreation areas, with a call to prayer 5 times per day in which the US guard forces stand down their activities to the best of their abilities to respect the detainee’s religious beliefs. In Camp 4-where the most compliant detainees are held-they are given up to 22 hours of recreation per day and live in open air bays where they live communally with up to 9 other men. In Camps 5 and 6, where less compliant detainees are held, communication occurs freely throughout the "block" and detainees are taken out to "rec" at up to 5 at one time for up to 8 hours per day.”
The Arar affair was a travesty of justice and quite likely a criminal act. Justice Dennis O'Connor’s ruling is logical, thoughtful and quite appropriate in my view. I am glad that once elected the Tories did the right thing and addressed the issue to Mr Arar’s satisfaction including supporting his case politically and financially against the US Govt.
[updated Tue Jul 29 07:57:53 -0400 2008]
29 Jul 07:57
Jan from Whitby
I must agree with Nik on the present situation as it present it self.As a Conservative I'm a bit fearfull that if there is not a big shift in Conservative behaviour the next election can very well turn out in favour of a Liberal minority, and were are we then?
[updated Mon Jul 21 06:51:30 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 06:51
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
hollinm
It is easy to jump on board and criticize Harper and the Conservative government for not having a vision or capturing the public's imagination.
However, let's remember that the Liberal party has been in power for 70 of the last 100 years. They have governed Canada by buying peoples' votes with their own money and have created a country where citizens are not naturally inclined to take personal responsibility but instead want cradle to grave government services. In other words a left leaning socialist society. The Liberals with their tax and spend policies have been more than happy to oblige.
Over the years various Liberal governments have done some good things on the social front. However, many programs were ill conceived, polyanna in nature and infringed on provincial jurisdiction and subsequently turned into a waste of taxpayers money. However, the electorate gave them credit for trying. In turn the Liberal party with their effective spin machine developed a brand which is still a powerful force in Canadian politics.
So Harper is up against 3 left leaning political parties in the House of Commons and a Liberal dominated Senate. He has had much difficulty in getting his agenda through because the opposition parties are intent with the help of the Senate to ensure the Conservatives have little by way of accomplishment to take to the people in the next election. Critics say he should have been more concilliatory in negotiating with the opposition parties. How can you be more concilliatory when the opposition want to gut virtually every piece of legislation and make it into their own as if they were the government?
Having said that the Conservatives who have reason to be wary of the left leaning media in this country have adopted a communications strategy which is misguided and down right silly. In a day and age of instant communications to not aggressively explain its positions in cogent and believable terms is virtual political suicide.
Initially the media and the opposition parties sat by waiting their opportunity. That opportunity came when the government did not manage the faux scandals well and the media and the opposition parties pounced with daily outrageous claims, columns, biased headlines and negative spin. All the while the Conservatives stayed virtually silent.
Unless Harper can change his perceived image, improve the communications strategy and make reasonable nice with the media he will have to fight not only the oppostion parties in the next election but the electronic and print media who are anxious to see the Liberals returned to power.
The one gift the Liberal party has given Mr. Harper and it really is his ace up his sleeve and that is electing Stephane Dion as leader of the Liberal party.
Everybody suggests it was the attack ads which defined Dion after becoming leader. I reject that notion. I believe they were the catalyst but Dion through his words and actions since becoming leader that has reinforced the notion that he is weak. That is why the electorate accepted the Conservative attack ads a reflection of Dion. If the opposite were true the ads would not have worked.
So Canadians will have an option come the next election; Harper or Dion. Neither of them are going anywhere in the near term. This idea that a leader needs to be cuddly and warm making us all feel good is nice to have but I will take competence over those characteristics. We are electing a leader not a beauty pageant contestant and Canadians need to assess the measure of each man, look at the policies and make an informed decision come the next election.
[updated Mon Jul 21 08:11:49 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 08:11
22 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bernie
There is too much emphasis placed on the personality of the lead actors. If we put our trust in person of the leader we will be disappointed. All persons are flawed and politicians, especially leading ones, are particularly afflicted. If we vote for them because they are 'leaders' then we get what we deserve.
We should look only to their policies, and not the policies they espouse, but the ones they are likely to follow once they get in, especially if they get a majority. The policies they employ , we have to glean from our own observations, picking out their true intentions from their hidden agendas, hints from their previous writings and speeches, coupled with those, whom you know, who have had closer contact and whom you have trust in.
I trust that Elizabeth May's intentions are good, but there's no hope of becoming PM or having a important impact on the political scene as yet.
Jack Layton also has no chance of forming governmant but if he played his cards right could possibly hold the balance of power. He hasn't shown that he has what it takes to position his party forward enough to make a significant contribution. He has some good policies but he doesn't sell them.
That leaves the other two parties. I have yet to make a firm decision on the Liberals or the road they plan to take us on. Their problem is, as I see it, that they haven't confidence in their own plan. They are afraid to vigorously promote their agenda. It appears that they are afraid that the public will not accept, which means to me that they are more concerned about their party image than about Canadians at large.. That`s a mistake. If they have a good agenda and it`s paralell with Canadians wishes they will have no problem getting accepted. Forget themselves and their party and think of Canadians would be my advice to them.
To say that`s impossible is nonsense, that Canada is made up of diverse regions.
That argument would also follow for provinces, for municipalities, for heavens sake, even within families. That doesn`t preclude good governance.
My hestitancy, in knowing where those other parties stand or where they plan to go, ceases when it come to this present Conservative party. I have no doubts about Harper`s intentions and how he would try to impliment them if he were to receive a majority.
It is a corporate agenda and he will do what he can to foster that agenda to the benefit of the corporate world and to the detriment of Canadian citizens. He has no interest in what the people want. Because he is in a minority position he teases the public with little tidbits to give the appearance being `with the people`; just keep them content until he finds some way to sneak through with a majority.
His enthusiasm for proting that agenda may be a liitle curtailed with the election of a new administration in the US in November.
I don`t believe the Canadian voters will ever give him a majority.
[updated Mon Jul 21 08:16:48 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 08:16
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MRM
While I agree with the general premise of the article I do not agree with some the conclusions arrived at within it. First of all the statement that:
“Considering the Conservatives have thrown everything including the kitchen sink at the Liberals and they are still mired in a dead heat must make one pause.”
From where I am viewing things it is the Liberals who have “thrown everything” at the Tories by manufacturing scandal after phony scandal and they cannot get over minority territory in the polls. I believe given the events of the past year for the Tories to have a slight lead in the polls is a small miracle and a testament to just how much Canadians dislike Dion and distrust the Liberals.
It also unfair to judge the Tories on the bar that:
“the average Canadian would likely be hard pressed to describe what a Stephen Harper Canada would look like in ten years”
I would be willing to bet that the average voter would be hard pressed to describe what a Dion Canada would look like in ten years either or a Martin or Chrétien government for that matter. The truth is while political pundits spend a good deal of time on these types of academic questions the average Canadian does not and certainly does not determine how they will vote based the answer to them.
Another assumption that I think is incorrect is that the so called Bernier affair will hurt the Tories in Quebec. All indications in the press and polls are that it has not and likely will not. I also think that the Cadman affair will be over by the Fall and if it wraps up with a big payout and public apology for the Liberals it will hurt them, not the Tories. As for the EC situation, my sense is that it will quietly go away and the Tories will eat the cost of the ads? Only assumptions but just as likely to happen as any other assumptions made on these issues.
The bottom line in an election for me is the Dion factor. I do not believe that Canadians have confidence in him. In English Canada he is viewed as somewhat of a bumbling professor and he remains highly distrusted in Quebec. So once that large undecided bloc steps into the voting booth I predict that vast majority of them will vote Harper or at least anything but Dion.
[updated Mon Jul 21 09:05:16 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 09:05
52 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Graham Watt
the Conservative's dilemma may be that tactics alone, in love or politics are never enough to win a fickle heart. And when the tactics are largely borrowed from a neighbour, they seem manufactured rather than from original thinking. As someone said, "if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made". Might this explain the reticence of Canadians largely to give Stephen Harper leave to govern with a majority? As an example, Stephane Dion, after months of surviving using the Ali rope-a-dope technique, came out with a wild roundhouse Green Shift swing, which for all its complexity and vulnerability, had a ring of honesty to it. Dion's main problem is not Stephen Harper, but shaking the media in general from its predilection for typecasting political leaders without constant re-evaluation. Again, as in love, the daring and risky maneuvre often wins the fickle heart because it is closer to honesty than the borrowed tactic.
[updated Mon Jul 21 10:59:16 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 10:59
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Non-aligned in Toronto
So far the general malaise with the two major parties has not translated into any sustained move to a third. The Greens enjoyed a brief burst of double digit popularity that now seems to be dissapating somewhat. The Bloq is stalled pretty much at or below average Historical values. Some polls have shown the NDP up a tick or two, but certainly not within breakthrough range. (IMO the NDP would need to get around 23 to 25% in order to elect as many MP's that the percentage of votes =the % of MPs (ie: 25% of the vote = 77 MPs). Even to elect 50+ they would need over 21%. 17.4% last election only got them 30.
The conservatives carry the baggage of an unloved leader who is viewed as manipulative and humourless. Even when he smiles it appears forced. They also carry the baggage of a weak caucus, and an accident prone cabinet.
The Liberals have not fully recovered from Adscam, and Dion's failure to stand up to the Conservatives appears to voters to be cowardly. The Green Shift has been successfully if dishonestly branded as a money grab rather than a tool to fight GHG. In fact Dion's failure to establish emission reduction goals make this criticism all too believable.
I will watch with interest the upcoming by-elections at least one of which (Westmount) must be called this week. I would assume that both Quebec by-elections will be called for the same day. The Ontario seat needn't be called until January, and may or may not be included.
[updated Mon Jul 21 15:59:10 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 15:59
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
westerner (suspended)
The Green Shaft Plan is a Tax Grab Plan and will do little to reduce GHG. Dion has abandoned the Kyoto Agreement he insisted Harper follow and has not set any GHG reduction targets. This Plan will be the largest government imposed shift in wealth from the west to central Canada in the country's history. It is shameful!!
[updated Mon Jul 21 18:26:38 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 18:26
16 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
True North
The problem I have with Harper is that I do not know whether he really believes what he is saying and acting upon or is it just part of his strategy to gain that which he most wants - a majority in the next election. Examples: 1. Does he really believe that the Quebecois should constitute a nation or was it just a great strategic move to gain the vote of the Quebeckers and he was really indifferent whether they constituted a nation or not. 2. Harper's sudden conversion to recognizing the reality of climate change in December 2006 is most suspicious. Was his conversion based on a reading of the polls on what Canadians were most concerned about or was it a genuine turn-around? Harper comes across as a cold, calculating individual, sometimes angry, one too clever by half and that makes me most uncomfortable. I cannot relate to him.
In addition, the attack ads of the Conservatives do not endear me to the party and to Harper for these ads must have had his stamp of approval. To make fun of Dion and portray him as a cartoonish character is cheap politics and does nothing to engage Canadians in serious debate on the issues facing Canada; they rather obfuscate and derail
people from thinking about the real issues. Dion has consistently said that he will not take part in negative politics. I fully support him in that strategy; it is honest politics and that is what I look for.
True North
[updated Mon Jul 21 20:49:58 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 20:49
11 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
gerry l
Stephen Harper heads a government in trouble. Rolling in cash used to define it's main rival, in control of the levers of power for two years and controlling the nation's agenda for this period have yielded nothing in terms of political advancement - indeed, Conservatives have less popularity today than the party achiveved during the 2006 election.
The conclusion is inescapable: Voters turfed the Liberals into a time-out and elected Harper as caretaker of a minority until appropriate penace was served. This being accomplished, the Liberals are poised again to assume their historical role as the inevitable governing party with Tories reverting to their traditional function as responsible opposition.
The Canadian political universe unfolds as it always has.
[updated Mon Jul 21 23:01:18 -0400 2008]
21 Jul 23:01
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Nigel
Hi Nick;
I agree with you on most of this, but when you say the Conservatives have no vision for the future, I think you miss the point. They do have a long-established one...NO GOVERNMENT WHEREVEVER POSSIBLE. Whether with nuclear safety, the new hands-off CRTC, the abandonment of Canadians in prisons abroad, their policy is clear: LITTLE OR NO GOVERNMENT IS GOOD GOVERNMENT. While they are in power, and Dion fiddles, the Tories are slashing and burning like there is no tomorrow, so we can be left with a fait accompli...that is why, even in Quebec, the NDP is gaining astonishing credibility...including two major labour leaders in the East End of Montreal who might normally have gone to the Bloc but haven't.
Nigel
nigelGspencer@hotmail.com
[updated Tue Jul 22 08:00:43 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 08:00
48 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
I wonder how the US election will affect Harper's copycat policies since its unlikely his parent party is going to win.
It may also change the dynamics of an upcoming Canadian election. My POV is that Canadians are tired of the Bush administration and see the Harper bunch as a clone of that government.
It will also slow down the North South 3 amigos integration he and Bush are day dreaming about.
[updated Tue Jul 22 09:45:38 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 09:45
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Foxer
Personally - I think Canada is holding it's breath a little.
I think they've seen harper now and are saying "Ok, he's not so scary. But - what is he going to do for us in the future? He's not really done anything really earth shattering so far". I think people have seen dion and said "I've been a liberal for years, but this guy isn't impressing me - is he going to pull something out of his hat i can really believe in yet, or is he a dud?"
I don't think they've seen much of layton at all, and most aren't sure what his policies are.
They're waiting on an election to actually take the time to look at it and decide. I think they'll want to see the platforms and will look for the 'vision' there.
I think that you can win the people over either with great personality or great platforms. Well - harper doesn't HAVE a personality and while Dion does, it sucks. So it's going to boil down to policy, and we haven't seen a platform yet from the CPC or NDP, and the Libs may have more than just the 'green shift' to play before it's over (they'd better, that one ain't wowing people).
Actually - i prefer it that way a bit. I think it's a mistake to pick a leader based primarily on personality. I'd rather it be about talent and policy any day. But we won't see people come down one way or another till the parties all put their cards on the table, and that won't happen till an election.
I think the debates may be more important than in the past this time out as well.
[updated Tue Jul 22 17:44:54 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 17:44
21 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080722.winout0722/BNStory/National/home
"OTTAWA — The Conservative Party shifted thousands of dollars in advertising expenses from two of its top Quebec candidates to other Quebec candidates who had more spending room in their 2006 federal election campaigns, the lawyer for Elections Canada has suggested.
A former financial officer for the party confirmed last month in a court examination that expenses incurred by Public Works Minister Christian Paradis and former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier were assigned to other candidates."
.............................
The Tory Quebec strategy is sure to be reeling even more after this disclosure of more slime and money laundering activities. Looks good on a party that portrays themselves as MR. Clean
[updated Tue Jul 22 17:50:46 -0400 2008]
22 Jul 17:50
7 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Eating humble pie chart...
Don't let greedy politicians capitalize on caring ,compassionate people...You really want a green shift ..Vote green.Do something to be heard...Show out of touch politicians we want real change.Vote green...
It may seem like a wasted vote to some, but it would show peoples dissatifaction with the governments failings.....Politicians like to play political games(tax games) to try to distract and depress the public .Throw around mis and dis information as if it were the truth( watch out for african climate change).They play these games to do nothing more then Hurt their opponents and kill peoples passions and dreams for their own financial gains. This is a great way to keep the people suppressed and under control.Let the people fight amongst themselves while leaders pass faulty laws and rules that are unenforceable, simply cause they can!......Until election time when they roll a loaded dice with a lot of false promises and verbal spew. Voters always rolling snake eye's (unless of coarse you bet on them, then the o.l.g. gets it..But what's the difference...lose....lose...lose!
).
Let's quit these daming games and bring a party to the house that stands for real change!!.A party that will represent what people have been screaming at politicians to acknowledge ..It is time for a better way! Innovation,incentives and new technological green initiatives are in demand.Lets scratch that niche .Turn Canada into a lead country .Not a follower to its demise..
It seems to me that the liberals don't even want to win in the next election and the conservatives are beginning to show their true color(grey or GRAY)...These political tax games make me wonder if perhaps no party wants to lead the country at all .After all who wants to run a country heading towards depression .A depression caused by the failure of politicians and leading businesses to listen to a changing world. A world that has been growing around them for years as they continue to raise their walls in ignorance .
An Example can be pin pointed to when the rules were changed to allow the ndp to stay in parliment with 7 percent of the vote , instead of the 9 percent originally needed due to the growing number of green party voters and a confussed parliment..
Another example is with the battle of the Bush election. Where gore went on to capitalize on the growing green front with his global warming spew.True or not...While politicians play games in their make belief world , Who really wants to rule the potential failing economy in the real world ...It is easy to mess everything up in the confusion of self interest and falsifying games ,while searching for more money .It's Even harder for these politicians and trapped business owners to fix the mistakes and the problems they helped create
.Time to swallow some humble pie, and listen to the public for once!! The people are trying to tell you something!!..We are aware of your games...NO MORE!!!!
GreenFish66..........
Let's ask meteorologists one question directed at climate change!..
With all the new weather predicting technology .Is it getting easier or harder to predict the weather??..Are forcasts getting more accurate or harder to make????
Partly cloudy with sunny periods, chance of rain!
[updated Wed Jul 23 12:14:54 -0400 2008]
23 Jul 12:14
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MRM
Anyone who ever doubted that the CBC, our publicly funded national media outlet was a propaganda machine for the LPC and have been manipulating the news in an effort to control the political agenda need do so no more. They have outed themselves and entered two candidates in the Sept by-elections. Both candidates will no doubt be continuing to collect their considerable taxpayer funded salaries throughout the campaign. They decided to run because it was becoming ever more apparent with the rising fortunes of the CPC and the ever sinking fortunes of the LPC that the GG job would no longer be the sole purview of CBC journalists.
[updated Fri Jul 25 00:57:08 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 00:57
43 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
One of the issues Nik said was a potentially large problem for Tories going into the fall is about to hit them finally. After trying to dodge the bullet and trying to deflect their money laundering in and out scheme scheme beyond another election the courts are ruling against them time and time again. They continue wasting court time that costs taxpayers money when they should simply be explaining to Canadians that their tactics were illegal.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/466806
[updated Fri Jul 25 01:37:20 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 01:37
12 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=677604
It looks as thought the shift in manufacturing jobs out of Canada has distorted where immigrants locate. The loss of manufacturing jobs in Southern Ontartio has forced many immigrants to go to smaller centers outsdide of the big Cities. This is true of both Vancouver and Montreal also.
The article also gives truth to another lie that foxer tried to foist on us about immigration the other day. He and his truth challenged friend are always slanting lying or fabricating stories that eventually come full circle.
Another lie from them is the fact the Liberals are now at 21% in Crop's last Quebec poll and that is even with or slightly ahead of the Reform (CRAP party
[updated Fri Jul 25 16:00:14 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 16:00
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=680060
"The federal government has posted a budget deficit of $500-million for the first two months of the 2008-09 fiscal year, the Department of Finance said Friday.'
That's an annual of $3BB deficit which makes mince meat of Flaherty's lies once more and will further erode Harper's numbers as people are already nervous about his fiscal regime. And guess what...revenues are down and spending up just as I forecast.
so now we can add dficit monger to the their titles of liars and money launderers. Guess who wil now be on the defensive this coming election
[updated Fri Jul 25 16:06:40 -0400 2008]
25 Jul 16:06
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
The tory rhetoric in Ontario is picking up with major announcements this past week and the showing off ministers like Clement and Flaherty on the BBQ circuit and in public with Ontario provincial ministers. An Ipsos Reid VP was just on the radio here saying that reflects Harper's desperatioin in Ontario as their own polls are showing them up to 15% behind the Liberals across the province. He went on to say that "green shift" may actually be consoldiating that vote in Ontario although its still a little early to pronounce accurately on that. He also noted that Dion is coming across much better now and his public appearances are getting much better and he's showing his confidence and comfot levels in public.
He also stated that if those %'s hold up the Liberals are almost guaranteed to win, at a minimum a minority victory in a fall election. He even further mused that ministers like /clements would most likely lose their seats if the numbers continue as is.
The interview was music to my ears.
Ipsos are known tory pollsters also and do a full polling show every saturday evening on CFRB1010 which is a tory branded station.
[updated Sat Jul 26 08:25:26 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 08:25
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Foxer
Looks like the tories can take enough seats in Quebec to win their majority.
As posted here in the national post:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=677663
The tories stand a strong chance of taking all of the montreal ridings:
"But in Quebec there are now only two parties in the race for the 50 seats outside Montreal -- the Bloc Quebecois, who hold most of them, and the Conservatives, who are challenging them as the competitive federalist party.
The Conservatives won eight of their 10 Quebec seats in 418, and have since picked up another there in a byelection in the Saguenay region.
And that's the point. The 418 isn't just Quebec City, but the North Shore and the South Shore, from Beauce to the Gaspe. The area is at least 95% French-speaking, and has a history of voting massively one way or another."
Looks like they've got strong chances in Ontario's key regions too.
I think harper is praying for dion to call a fall election. I think Dion is just praying. :)
[updated Sat Jul 26 18:10:44 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 18:10
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Foxer
WHILE DION PROPOSES MORE TAXES, CPC MOVES TO INCREASE JOBS IN ONTARIO.
Well well well. While Dion is proposing more than a billion in new taxes for ontario, Harper's gov't is seeing 6 billion spent in improving Ontario's infrastructure and jobs.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=677349
Some excerpts;
"Modern infrastructure is key to providing essential services to Canadians," Mr. Cannon said here at a news conference.
"Substantial infrastructure funding was long overdue in this country. Our government will work with Ontario to identify those infrastructure needs most important to Ontarians."
Targeted funding of $362-million has also been earmarked for smaller cities, with a population of 100,000 or less.
Provincial Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said the program will help create good jobs and strengthen Ontario's economic competitiveness.
"Not only will we create jobs today, but improve productivity in the future," he said
Seems more likely to create jobs and help ontario get itself out of it's problems than taxing them more. I suspect that'll help boost people's confidence that Harper is the better choice for people worried about their jobs.
[updated Sat Jul 26 18:17:47 -0400 2008]
26 Jul 18:17
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
larryl
nik. I am sure any one interested in this topic watched Dion on question period to-day. Without letting our personal bias get in the way, I would be interested to know if any opinions have changed or if any one thinks the publics opinion might have have changed in any way.
[updated Sun Jul 27 17:31:08 -0400 2008]
27 Jul 17:31
7 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
larryl
Interesting question on Sympatico /MSN. Since it is a voluntary response and across the country the results from 25,000 is not scientific but the results might be more an indication of the true feelings of the voters. They are not a polling company who might try to influence the opinion of respondents. What we read into the results will vary with our own opinions but it would be interesting to poll our small group for their opinion of the results. If you go to
sympatico.msn.ca you can read the question and see the results. More on my take of the results later.
[updated Mon Jul 28 17:37:26 -0400 2008]
28 Jul 17:37
25 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Great message Larryl....It won't be easy for two parties (liberals and conservatives) to win a majority this fall election.They have seemed to forget about family values and peoples freedoms .All for the security of a few more dollars in potentially tough times...Created by bad business and politics!..If people feel ripped off or lied to ,they're less likely to give up that dollar!....I think it's time big business and governments go back to grade 3 and play that "Lemonade stand"game again(anyone remember that game ) .......Are they smarter than a 5th grader?
I think it is far past time that the greens and the ndp merge into a new party...How about the NDGP....The New Democratic Green Party!.....That's what the country needs ....Real values!!!
Thank-you for your space and time .....
B.Greenfish66.......
Over and out there from here........
[updated Tue Jul 29 02:21:05 -0400 2008]
29 Jul 02:21
19 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Foxer
Well - looks like one Party leader has made his choice.
The national post offers the following article:
http://tinyurl.com/5kerh7
Here's the first blurb:
"Tories ready to bait Dion, but will he bite?
Don Martin, National Post Published: Wednesday, July 30, 2008
OTTAWA -Idle speculation suggested the Conservatives would run and hide, delaying Parliament's return for an extra month or two while avoiding votes that would hand the Opposition an opportunity to force an election.
Well, apparently not.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's kickoff for his caucus retreat tonight is being advance-billed as The Dion Dare, a gauntlet he will throw down at Liberal leader Stephane Dion's feet demanding he pull the parliamentary plug this fall or back away from his chronically empty election bluster until next year.
The government has lurched sharply into election hawk territory in the past week, officially declaring there is no Throne Speech plan to extend the summer recess, no scrapping of a fall economic update, even if it's filled with lousy fiscal news, and vowing no hesitation over introducing confidence measures that, if voted down, would send MPs to the polls."
It continues. (see national post for details)
So, it looks like if Dion wants an election then Harper is prepared to roll the dice and take the chance. We'll have to wait and see if Dion and the other opposition parties will pick up the gauntlet this time, probably after the by elections.
[updated Wed Jul 30 19:14:29 -0400 2008]
30 Jul 19:14
18 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
One more reason the Libs haven't pushed for an election before now is the way Harper and his mighty midget are running the economy which took a downwards turn in May with the worst months yet to come if the US is any barometer, and it is.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/business/story.html?id=ebf8552c-11ee-4d3c-8245-d24c851f01c4
Nothing like nailing their incompetence while the economy is flailing around aimlessly.
[updated Fri Aug 01 22:33:45 -0400 2008]
01 Aug 22:33
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Here's one that has backfire written all over it as Harper once again screws up in Quebec with attempts at bribery of the voting public. This was written by a separatist and ultra nationalist of which there are still many in the province. This attempt at correcting history will not go down well and Charest was wise to step back and once again take the money and avoid the consequences of harepr's crass politics.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=5947c62a-4a53-4953-9223-35acf9d2bf1f&p=2
"But sometimes, even the most insistent propaganda, if too disconnected from
reality, doesn't work. Witness the Ipsos Reid-Canwest poll reported Friday in the Gazette:
While 46 per cent of Quebecers see the 400th as the "founding of Quebec and the Québécois nation," 45 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec see it as the "founding of French Canada, both inside and outside Quebec." But none of these specific respondents see it as the actual "founding of the Canadian state."
Oh, well. Could it be that the Harper government spent its 400th anniversary budget of $110 million tax dollars for nothing?"
Josee Legault writes for the Gazettee
[updated Sun Aug 03 13:52:36 -0400 2008]
03 Aug 13:52
24 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Here's one more reason to fear populist conservative type politicans. While the article is about the current US financial disaster it also plays to one of my themes that populist conservative governments are receipes for economic disaster. Flaherty helped create one mess in Ontario and with Harper fronting him he is on his way to ANOTHER FISCAL CALAMITY, this one of national proportions.
Please don't tell me there not similarities to the US situation here. We were well managed fiscally for 14 plus years and the wheels are just starting to come off now that a recession is around the corner. Flaherty is very close to driving us into deficit territory and will actually get us there by year end. The May GDP numbers released last week show the economy slipping into negative growth which if continued will drive us into a deficit any month now. I believe we may already be in a recessionary mode.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/88839-delusions-of-debt
[updated Tue Aug 05 03:16:43 -0400 2008]
05 Aug 03:16
59 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Here's another very likely backfire for Harper;
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/474185
"The latest Liberal court filings include an affidavit from University of Toronto professor Peter Russell that argues no Canadian prime minister has sued political opponents for libel despite a history of dramatic accusations during stormy debates in Parliament.
"This use of legal action to silence the opposition is characteristic of authoritarian governments," Russell says in an expert opinion obtained by Toronto lawyer Chris Paliare, who is representing the Liberals.
"It is incompatible with democratic government," argues Russell, a political scientist and professor emeritus at the university."
Any bets Harper will try and delay the hearing in September. The embarrassment of this Liberal action being successful going into an election campaign could single handedly kill off Harper.
[updated Fri Aug 08 03:00:08 -0400 2008]
08 Aug 03:00
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
I presume you all remember Flaherty the liar saying our economy was fine and would withstand the US downturn.......GUESS WHAT.....he lied again.
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080808.wloonie0808/BNStory/Business/home
"The employment report – marking the biggest job loss in 17 years – “really caught people off guard,” Ms. Croft said in an interview.
“Canada has been considered a bastion of economic stability, unlike the U.S., the U.K., Europe, Japan, which are already in recession or heading that way. Canada, until recently, has held up quite well, but this jobs report is a sign that it's our turn now,” she said.
[updated Fri Aug 08 12:16:43 -0400 2008]
08 Aug 12:16
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
TPQ (suspended for inappropriate comments)
The Tory bully boys won't shake their reputation now. Findlay trying to take the commons inquiry off their game has highlighted the real tories we have in power. shame shame.
I love it when this stuff happens to bullies.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080811.wtories0811/BNStory/National/home
"Mr. Finley then stunned MPs by ignoring requests from Liberal committee chair Paul Szabo to leave and return for his scheduled appearance on Wednesday. Mr. Szabo eventually ordered in Commons security guards who escorted Finley from the room.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper had warned recently about “Kangaroo court” committee inquiries.
As reporters trailed him down hallways, Finley refused to explain why he could not appear later in the week as the committee had requested. When asked if he would return voluntarily, replied: “Not likely.”
[updated Mon Aug 11 15:59:07 -0400 2008]
11 Aug 15:59
12 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MoE2.2
The Green Shift Plan is quite simple in concept...I wonder why its supporters have made it appear more complex. Global forces, which we cannot control, are forcing carbon related costs to climb sharply...and they will continue to do so according to all the candidates; Canadians need to adjust to this reality; forcing big polluters to pay is only part of the answer...citizens need to take action to protect themselves from rising prices by using less carbon (by using oil more efficiently and by moving to other sources of energy) The Green Shift helps citizens to become more energy efficient and thereby use less carbon. It does this by putting money into each citizens pockets (income tax cuts); by helping them to adjust to be less dependent on carbon (tax credits for new windows/new gas or electrical furnace, etc). In the end, citizens have more money in their pocket in the long term, use less carbon, and have more control than now over the extent to which they will incur increasing carbon costs. This makes much more sense than a do nothing "plan" which continues to bleed citizens funds to the oil companies.
[updated Sun Sep 14 19:42:07 -0400 2008]
14 Sep 19:42
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.