Harper joins U.S. in Iraq, with support of Liberals

616 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NDPP

It's All in the Telling  -  by Denis A Conroy

http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/10/its-all-in-the-telling/

"Yes, dear multitude, potato yourselves on your couches, get comfortable, stay uncritical and listen to big brother identify the goodies from the baddies for you.

It's them or us.

We have become past masters in living with self-deception...."

Unionist

Debater wrote:

Unionist, I'm not sure what you're getting at.  It's not easy for leaders to make these decisions, particularly when the government, media & public are pressuing them into war.  Trudeau & Mulcair are actually doing what they can so far to resist the rush into war, so I'm not sure what more you expect.

I'm not talking about Trudeau and Mulcair. I'm talking about 64% of Canadians who parrot back what they've heard in the media, because they have no consistent and clear sources of information or systematic opposition to Harper's murderous foreign policy. And I'm talking about some babblers who automatically, by reflex, run interference for whatever the leader of "their" party is saying at the moment.

Quote:
Btw, I would like the Moderators to change the title of this thread. The Liberals are not supporting Harper's Iraq mission.

The thread was opened on September 5, 2014. The Liberals were certainly - shamelessly - agreeing with Harper's intent to send "military advisors" for 30 days, or whatever the blatant lie was at the time. You can try to change history all you like, but it has a way of asserting itself.

Marc Garneau, John Baird's guest in Iraq, gushed:

Marc Garneau, on September 4, 2014 wrote:
... "we all have the same interests here. ISIS is a scourge and we have come together to help Iraq here."

Thanks, Marc. Your comment earned a dishonourable mention in Unionist's babble thread title.

Moderators, please do NOT change this title.

 

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
What's also a fact is that this was also equally true before the last election, until it wasn't anymore and it was the Liberals who ended up in third place. Your contention that this time that can't happen, however, is pure opinion, and more than that, opinion backed up by nothing at all. It's more accurate to say that you hope that won't happen this time, but hopes don't make arguments.

He is saying the opposite. He is saying the Conservatives could win again. The NDP can't win because if there were a chance they could the blue Liberals would go Conservative again just like they did in 2011.

NorthReport

Are they leaving Canada out - don't we make bullets too?

ISIS Militants Use Bullets Made in U.S., Iran, 19 Other Countries

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-militants-use-bullets-...

ISLAMIC STATE AMMUNITION IN IRAQ AND SYRIA

DISPATCH FROM THE FIELD

Analysis of small-calibre ammunition recovered from Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria

October 2014

http://www.conflictarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Dispatch_IS_Iraq_S...

Unionist

sherpa-finn wrote:

Personally, I do not find it helpful to attribute motivations to others just because their analysis and conclusions differs from yours. Maybe their calculations are just a little different.

I observe that there are posters who adopt and rationalize whatever position their party's Leader happens to espouse at the moment - and modify accordingly. I have no clue nor care what their "motivations" are. It's an empirical observation. Either tell me I'm mistaken in my observation (which will be a tough challenge on the evidence), or perhaps comment on the rest of my post, which is designed to illustrate in capsule form how consent for war and aggression get manufactured in our society.

Not very original on my part - but we need historical memory here. We need to be reminded about all the egregious lies and distortions that imperialists have used in the past to get people pumped up to commit aggression, war, even genocide. Otherwise, enlighten me as to how we will avoid following those paths blindly in the future?

 

NorthReport

Can anyone post this article?

It looks like it might be one of the few things worth reading in the press about Canada's latest war adventure.

It appears similiar to the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" relationship between Canada's pollsters and the right-wing Liberal and Conservative political parties.

The Hill media war chorus clears its throat … politely

Watching CBC’s Power and Politics can be hard on the synapses. It’s not just having to endure Paul Calandra reprising his role as the PM’s stunt double, or watching Opposition members feigning outrage, or listening to slick PR types and consultants lecturing everyone about everything — without, of course, disclosing their conflicts of interest. Nope. Among the more grating aspects of this daily political digest are the journalists themselves — so chummy with each other and, far too often, with…

 

The Hill media war chorus clears its throat … politely

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/10/06/the-hill-media-war-chorus-clears-its-...

 

NDPP

Is World War III On? (and vid)

http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/193340-isis-war-protests-us/

"By way of financial flows and sanctions, Western powers have ultimately started a world proxy war..."

Sean in Ottawa

Via Twitter:

52Michelle Simson ‏@MichelleSimson  57m57 minutes ago

As a Liberal, I am ashamed we are flip-flopping on ISL mission. With Kobani about to fall, we need to honour Article 5 in r Nato agreement.

 

hmmmmmmmmmmm

Brachina

 People have been saying that Harper is going to try and use IS as his election issue, hoping it will be the one keeps the Prime Ministers office in his hands, and perhaps there are hints he's right in the sense that its put the Liberals in a bad akward spot. They supported the mission at first and then flip flopped to opposing it and honestly have not really been a defining position in this debate, whereas Harper and Mulcair have staked out thier position right away, Mulcair has been brilliant in his criticism of going to war in Iraq, whereas this whole thing plays to Justin'z weaknesses on Policy, Debate, Parliamentary Work, and he mishandled if earily on allow the NDP to not only criticize the Tories, but the Liberals as well. So Justin is being caught in an Arena he is not skilled in caught in a left right pinser and having already made major mistakes. And war ia the sort of issue that creates polarization within the public, there is no moderate position, and guess what both poles are taken with Justin bouncing between them. 

 Don't get me wrong, I bounced myself briefly, but I don't lead a national party and my bouncing lasted 1 day. I'm am firmly in the no camp.

Brachina

http://m.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2014/10/07/liberals-to-support-iraq...

 

 I stand corrected, the Liberals haven't simply flip flopped from supporting the war to opposing it, they're now trying to do both at the same time.

 

 Stupidity like this is what happens when you try and use opinion polls as your platform. The Libs see that Canadian don't want Troops on the ground, but thdy want IS beaten, so they come up with this idea of having thier  cake and eating it too. It will not work and it will backfire on multipld fronts.

Sean in Ottawa

They are not getting hurt on this one. Their initial support for the mission will be forgotten as inconsequential. The current position to vote aginast the mission but respect the result and support the troops in the field will not be unpopular.

swallow swallow's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Via Twitter:

52Michelle Simson ‏@MichelleSimson  57m57 minutes ago

As a Liberal, I am ashamed we are flip-flopping on ISL mission. With Kobani about to fall, we need to honour Article 5 in r Nato agreement.

 

hmmmmmmmmmmm

Article 5 reads (emphasis added): "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." 

Unionist

Yeah, poor Michelle Simson, I would love to see her putrid ass dragged in front of a war crimes tribunal some day.

Oh sorry, was that rude?

 

NDPP

A Longtime New Democrat on ISIL Combat Vote: Gary Doer Proud of PM

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/10/07//a-longtime-new-democrat-on-...

"...For all the well documented irritants in the Canada-US relationship, most famously on the Keystone XL pipeline file, administration officials in Washington say Canada's staunch support of the ISIL mission has been noticed and appreciated.

Doer said he's been hearing those positive messages in his interactions with the administration. 'The administration is very pleased with the recommendation by the prime minister,' Doer said."

sherpa-finn

Following up on the Article 5 issue - there was another shining moment for Justin today:

Interviewer: What if Turkey invokes Article 5 following an ISIL attack in Turkey?

Justin:  What is Article 5?

OMG.  I think its time to send in the clowns....

Don't you love farce?  My fault, I fear.
I thought that you'd want what I want...
Sorry, my dear!
But where are the clowns?  
Quick - Send in the clowns
Don't bother, they're here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5os4NFeKFFs

Sean in Ottawa

I imagine a majority of long time New Democrats are not proud of Gary Doer.

I am not surprised to see that there could be a connection in how close Canada supports the US desires in Iraq and the negotiations over pipelines.

Doer won't be the only one that will be accused of having been bought.

Webgear

Article 5 only applies to Nation States. ISIS isn't a nation thus Article 5 does not apply to them.

 

Webgear

I would like to see politicians read the full policy and treaties instead of the Cole's Notes Edition before making silly statements in front of the county. 

Webgear

Did anyone see the NDP's statement on Canada arming military groups in Iraq and Syria that are currently fighting ISIS? That is an unbelievable and unintelligent position to take.

This was reported on CBC earlier tonight. 

Sean in Ottawa

Webgear wrote:

I would like to see politicians read the full policy and treaties instead of the Cole's Notes Edition before making silly statements in front of the county. 

I think all parties seem to have uncritical people at the top who operate in a bubble trying to please each other and trumpet the loudest what they perceive to be the party line.

Consulting and understading the facts is underused. This is everywhere.

I took a person to a doctor due to a severe throat infection and a different approach was needed because swallowing a pill was painful. This doctor was great. She said she wanted to go with a less commonly used liquid medication. She said she thoguht she knew the right dosage regimen for this application but picked up the manual and checked it just to be sure. People need to use their sources and know what they are talking about more often. I would go back to this doctor anytime I want good care...

Political people need to touch base with the people outside the bubble as well as examining the facts.

They say academia is an ivory tower. Political leaderships are lead bunkers that nothing can enter -- not even microwaves.

Centrist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I imagine a majority of long time New Democrats are not proud of Gary Doer.

I am not surprised to see that there could be a connection in how close Canada supports the US desires in Iraq and the negotiations over pipelines.

Doer won't be the only one that will be accused of having been bought.

Sorry. But I have seen enough of ISIS via media, Twitter, etc. to come to the conclusion that they are a nasty bunch that needs to be terminated. Reminds me of the SS marching thru Europe back in the day. I support the combat mission as well. And so does everyone else I run into contact to. And also see many BC NDPers on Twitter dissappointed about the fed party position.

Ever wonder why Gary Doer was so popular in MB? Because he was in tune with the electorate. And social democrat parties in Europe and Australia are also taking the same position as the Cons.

Will say this now right off the bat... The fed Cons have their wedge issue which will see many red tory types (who have been parking their votes with the Libs and NDP) moving over to the Con column over the next few months. Just watch polling trends over the next few months for confirmation.

Harper just got handed some political red meat by both the NDP and Libs and he will be reaping the political fruits of same. Unfortunate. But it is what it is.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I don't see the next federal election being decided on this.

Also I think the more NATO types interfere in the Middle East the more ISIS types we will get...

We just can't go over there and bomb them reasonable.

At elast we will know what is shooting at us -- those will be the supplies NATO gave the anti Syria forces last year.

Centrist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I don't see the next federal election being decided on this.

Also I think the more NATO types interfere in the Middle East the more ISIS types we will get...

We just can't go over there and bomb them reasonable.

At elast we will know what is shooting at us -- those will be the supplies NATO gave the anti Syria forces last year.

Again. Sorry. My mind is made up on ISIS and so is everyone else I run into. Not gonna prevent me from supporting Tom (which I did at leadership). But a HUGE political problem. Don't take my word for it.

Just watch polling trends over the next few months. Cons will be major beneficiary. Seen this movie play out toooo many times before on an emotional issue such as this.

PS. Next election won't be decided upon this... but this issue just gave the Cons a political springboard.

Sean in Ottawa

Centrist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I don't see the next federal election being decided on this.

Also I think the more NATO types interfere in the Middle East the more ISIS types we will get...

We just can't go over there and bomb them reasonable.

At elast we will know what is shooting at us -- those will be the supplies NATO gave the anti Syria forces last year.

Again. Sorry. My mind is made up on ISIS and so is everyone else I run into. Not gonna prevent me from supporting Tom (which I did at leadership). But a HUGE political problem. Don't take my word for it.

Just watch polling trends over the next few months. Cons will be major beneficiary. Seen this movie play out toooo many times before on an emotional issue such as this.

PS. Next election won't be decided upon this... but this issue just gave the Cons a political springboard.

I am not going to dispute your prediction becuase I can't predict the future and I think there are other advantages the Conservatives may have but I can't remember an election decided by foreign affairs.

I think the next election may well turn on the economy and I can't predict if that is a liability or an asset for the Conservatives.

Centrist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I am not going to dispute your prediction becuase I can't predict the future and I think there are other advantages the Conservatives may have but I can't remember an election decided by foreign affairs.

I think the next election may well turn on the economy and I can't predict if that is a liability or an asset for the Conservatives.

Again, next election won't be decided on foreign affairs. Nada. Period. But don't be surprised over next few months if Cons pull even (or even surpass) Libs and NDP in opinion polls. Trends by individual pollsters are important therein - not actual junk numbers spewed out by same pollsters today.

Harper will also be viewed as more "Prime Ministerial" by more v. Tom and Trudeau.

That said, never seen anything akin to ISIS in my lifetime. Kinda makes al-Qaeda look like a bunch of elementary school kids. FWIW.

Remember, just my opinion.

PS. I always take a "look-forward" political approach on matters and have been pretty well attuned. Already saw (and predicted) the BC Libs taking the May, 2013 BC provincial election about 10 days before e-day.

Aristotleded24

Centrist wrote:
I have seen enough of ISIS via media, Twitter, etc. to come to the conclusion that they are a nasty bunch that needs to be terminated.

And the media always paints an accurate picture of what is going on?

Besides, the idea that such-and-such a group is a nasty bunch is one that is used to justify invading other countries. Witness the US invasion of Iraq. There's also the problem that no matter how noble the intention behind the combat mission, any weapons used by our side will inevitably find themselves in the hands of terrorists anyways. If we want to stop the killing, flooding the area with more weapons is certainly not going to help.

Centrist wrote:
Reminds me of the SS marching thru Europe back in the day.

That's a very simplistic analysis neglecting any differences between the SS and IS, the fact that it was the war reparations imposed on Germany that gave rise to the Nazis in the first place, and that before and during WWII the business elite in the US was quite happy with the Nazis and lamenting that the US wasn't more like Germany. It wasn't until Germany was utterly defeated that they were cast as the horrible evil villans in WWII.

Centrist wrote:
Ever wonder why Gary Doer was so popular in MB? Because he was in tune with the electorate.

Actually, he was a slick snake-oil salesman who got by on his personal charm.

Centrist wrote:
And social democrat parties in Europe and Australia are also taking the same position as the Cons.

To use an argument that I would hear as a child, if everyone else was robbing banks, does that mean you'd join in?

Besides, with defeats in Spain, Italy, Germany and Australia, the collapse of the popularity of both PASOK in Greece and Hollande in France, and the steady erosion in popular support for Labour in the UK, social democracy is generally a spent force in that part of the world anyways.

Centrist wrote:
I support the combat mission as well. And so does everyone else I run into contact to. And also see many BC NDPers on Twitter dissappointed about the fed party position.

Sometimes popular sentiment is not always in tune with the facts of what is going on, and it's important to take a stand on principle. And popular opinion shifts. Remember how much support for invading Iraq the US government had among the American population at the time? Well, once people saw what was going on, they changed their minds. And now is not the time for Mulcair to back down on his position by any means. Even if people don't agree with him, if they see him defending and articulating his principles on the matter, they will respect him, because doing the principled thing even when people disagree is a positive leadership quality.

Centrist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Remember, it's NOT what either YOU or I think... it's what the public thinks. And that's what's key. I am thinking now about the political ramifications federally. That's all.

PS. As an aside, when the U.S/British/French controlled Iraqi airspace with daily sorties in their fly zone, they controlled Iraq. When Bush Jr. decided to later invade Iraq, I, amongst MOST others, were COMPLETELY against same at outset. Worst. Decision. Ever.

ISIS? Public has already made their mind up. End of story.

Aristotleded24

Centrist wrote:
Remember, it's NOT what either YOU or I think... it's what the public thinks. And that's what's key. I am thinking now about the political ramifications federally. That's all.

So public opinion, whether manipulated or not, and the political ramifications, are the only important considerations? Is there any room in this situation for such pesky things as verifiable facts?

Centrist wrote:
ISIS? Public has already made their mind up. End of story.

That's exactly what the anti-Iraq war crowd in the US was told at the time of the 2003 invasion. Public opinion can and often does change with changing curcumstances. If it's a long, drawn-out war, or the countries involved start taking heavy casualties, or word gets out that the military campaigns are costing civilian lives in the conflict zone, public opinion might yet again change.

Centrist

Aristotleded24 wrote:
...

One last point. Only poll, that I have seen on this issue, so far, is from Ipsos last Friday. Again, with all polls, I always state that actual numbers are junk. That said, don't know if same has been posted in this thread yet... and don't entirely dismiss same:

Quote:

Two Thirds (64%) Support Use of Canadian Forces Fighter Jets in Airstrikes against ISIL Targets in Iraq

Support (64%) More than Canada’s 2001 Afghanistan Role (61%) and Potential Iraq 2002 Mission (44%), Just Less than 2012 Libya (70%) Commitment

Friday, October 03, 2014

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6618

Centrist

Aristotleded24 wrote:
...

PS. Don't know about the news coverage in MB, but the nightly TV news coverage here in BC shows atrocities against civilians, women, children, entire town populations, and regular beheadings of innocents inclusive of many outside humanitarians.

So how do ya think the public reacts and forms opinions with those visuals? Seriously???

 

Aristotleded24

Centrist wrote:
Don't know about the news coverage in MB, but the nightly TV news coverage here in BC shows atrocities against civilians, women, children, entire town populations, and regular beheadings of innocents inclusive of many outside humanitarians.

So how do ya think the public reacts and forms opinions with those visuals? Seriously???

From what I've seen, it's pretty much the same here, but I don't take seriously what I see in the news because the news is so slanted, biased, incomprehensive, deceptive, sensationalized, and often just plain wrong (witness how the news failed to see the economic crash of 2008 coming, how it still obscures the economic reality many people face, or how it dropped the ball on the problem of climate change for a few examples) that I just don't have any confidence in these entities.

Yes, I get that being bombarded with these images will sway public opinion against ISIS (at least that segment of the public that still pays attention to the news, there are many who don't bother because it's so blatantly distorted) but if you think for one minute that the media outlets are giving an accurate picture of what's happening with ISIS, I have some ocean front property in Saskatchewan to sell you.

Brachina

 At this point the NDP has nothing to lose, its the Libs who will be on the losing end of this. Support for the war is not universal, and while opposition is not the majoriry, yet, its still a sizable minority. The NDP takes those and the Tories take supporters of the war there isn't much room for the Liberals. 

 

Brachina

"NDP Leader Tom Mulcair (Outremont, Que.) accused the Liberals of changing their position, and said it is the fifth change in the Liberal position on the Iraq mission since it was first proposed.

 

“This is the fifth consecutive version that the Liberals have come out with on the war in Iraq. It’s not a flip flop, it’s a fifth flop. Mr. Harper has not changed his mind, he’s continuing despite the fact, we’re being told on the ground, that there’s no way to believe simple air strikes like this are going to be a solution,” Mr. Mulcair said.

 

“It is one thing to say that everyone who is in the service of the country merits our respect, but it is the government’s work to determine the mission, and the NDP opposes the mission Mr. Harper [is proposing],” he said."

 

 Flip Flopping this much on an issue is a debacle for Justin that should not be under estimated. Both Harper and Mulcair have something to gain in this fight Trudeau has everything to lose.

 

 

Unionist

Note: I've added the emphasis in what follows:

Centrist wrote:
Sorry. But I have seen enough of ISIS via media, Twitter, etc. to come to the conclusion that they are a nasty bunch that needs to be terminated.

Centrist wrote:
I support the combat mission as well.

Centrist wrote:
Again. Sorry. My mind is made up on ISIS...

Ok, gotcha. Seems very clear.

But then this:

Centrist wrote:
Remember, it's NOT what either YOU or I think... it's what the public thinks. And that's what's key. I am thinking now about the political ramifications federally. That's all.

Hmmm. Ok.

Recalculating...

Sean in Ottawa

I think we will be facing a shitstorm of debate on domestic and economic issues in the next election and the flipflops of Trudeau from prior to the vote on Iraq will not even be remembered by the election -- as interesting as they may be at the moment.

The Iraq debate will be a predictable should we stay or go and the positions of that time will be the focus of the debate not a sideshow of historical statements from prior to a vote.

If there is another flip flop then it would be news. People don't look back in history and remark much on evolving opinions of leaders but they will consider contradictions in actions -- so a contradiction in votes in the House would be interesting (although if the final position is popular not an election changer). But without that this won't be rememberd by more than a couple percent of the population a week from now never mind a year from now. If the NDP waste time trying to remind people of this they will lose the election as there are more important contradictions in Liberal positions to examine and time spent on this is time not spent on a better more currently relevant example.

 

NorthReport

So Irwin Cotler can't support Trudeau

ISIS mission: MPs approve Canada's air combat role

157 vote in favour of motion in House of Commons, 134 against

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-mission-mps-approve-canada-s-air-co...

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
If there is another flip flop then it would be news.

What flip flop? Trudeau supported sending advisors but is currently against participating in combat. Even if he had changed his opinion I would admire it as a sign of good character.

The notion that even with controversial issues a leader should pick a position then stick to it dogmatically right or wrong is an old-fashioned patriarchal attitude.

A_J

Listening to Mulcair on As it Happens last night, it seemed that the sticking point for the NDP is simply that this campaign is not being carried out under the auspices of NATO or the UN.

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:
So Irwin Cotler can't support Trudeau

ISIS mission: MPs approve Canada's air combat role

157 vote in favour of motion in House of Commons, 134 against

">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-mission-mps-approve-canada-s-air-co...

I'm glad that Trudeau isn't an authoritarian type leader that demands agreement on all issues. I'm sure you will be shocked to know that Trudeau even allowed Cotler to make a statement on his position on the Liberal website.

http://irwincotler.liberal.ca/blog/principled-abstention-isil-vote/

Supporting someone doesn't mean you have to agree with every position they take on every issue. People can disagree with respect.

It's refreshing to see and increases my support for Trudeau just like when he "flip-flopped" on marijuana and announced his support for legalization. Mulcair and the NDP executive won't flip-flop on it because they would see it as a sign of weakness rather than one of evolution, a source of shame, not pride.

Trudeau's respect for and support of Irwin Cotler is admirable not shameful. Authoritarianism is anachronistic.

It is through these acts that leaders reveal their character and values.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
If there is another flip flop then it would be news.

What flip flop? Trudeau supported sending advisors but is currently against participating in combat. Even if he had changed his opinion I would admire it as a sign of good character.

The notion that even with controversial issues a leader should pick a position then stick to it dogmatically right or wrong is an old-fashioned patriarchal attitude.

Pondering -- you have more serious critics of Trudeau's precious perfect positions in this thread so why don't you address them?

Flip flops are not about what they are "currently" (the word you emphasized) they are about consistency over time.

Of course you have already straddled the argument by the alternatives as follows: 

1) Trudeau did not Flip Flop (he did )

2) If he did flip flop [before the vote] it is not a problem (I pretty much already said that so you might want to confront the people who are actually disagreeing with you on that point instead of me)

But there you are trying to characterize anyone who criticizes your dear leader for a flip flop as having a "patriarchal attitude." (And if anyone takes offense to that, you will accuse them of personally attacking you.)

Not sure why I am indulging you but examples of reporting:

***
"But the Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, has taken a rather different position - or rather positions. When the idea of an international military campaign against Islamic State was first proposed last month, he spoke in favour of Canadian participation; now he is against it, having spent the intervening weeks saying he was undecided. Fair enough. Positions evolve. Only he still is not opposed to military intervention in principle: Only to Canada taking part in it. And he has not begun to explain why."
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Trudeau+stance+Iraq+mission+discredi...

Trudeau has backed the Conservatives, but did not even show up for a debate on the Canadian contribution Tuesday night. Mulcair did.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/18/justin_trudeau_getting_squ...

The Liberals stance has also been fluid, from supporting air strikes last week to Trudeau's statement this week that his party wants to see what the government proposes before making a decision.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-readying-groundwork-for-canada-s-...

On Thursday, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau slammed Harper for not making an “effort to build a non-partisan case for war.”
http://globalnews.ca/news/1595317/majority-of-canadians-back-use-of-figh...

On Thursday, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau said his party, which has already endorsed the Harper government’s deployment of special forces to Iraq, is willing to consider supporting Canadian fighter jets participating in the air war in Iraq, if the government recommends it.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/13/cnda-s13.html

"(ISIL) is a terrorist organization that is bent on killing anyone that disagrees with them. They are a threat to local security and Canada needs to be part of a solution that eliminates ISIS as a force to wreak havoc and violence with anyone who disagrees with them," he said.
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/4843553-trudeau-impresses-students-d...

 

Sean in Ottawa

A_J wrote:

Listening to Mulcair on As it Happens last night, it seemed that the sticking point for the NDP is simply that this campaign is not being carried out under the auspices of NATO or the UN.

He said NATO? The two are not interchangeable.

I would absolutely disagree with him there.

I have some tolerance for UN sanctionned missions but none at all for NATO missions that go into non-NATO territory. The NDP used to oppose NATO altogether.

I would not agree to anything the UN asks but I would say that UN sanction would be the minimum condition to operate a combat operation in another country.

NorthReport

Trudeau's downplaying it, all right, just the way Debater downplayed Trudeau "whipping out fighter jets" comment, as the Liberals continue to drop in the polls. 

Trudeau downplays Cotler’s abstention on Iraq

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/10/08/trudeau-downplays-cotlers-abstention-...

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Centrist wrote:

PS. Don't know about the news coverage in MB, but the nightly TV news coverage here in BC shows atrocities against civilians, women, children, entire town populations, and regular beheadings of innocents inclusive of many outside humanitarians.

So how do ya think the public reacts and forms opinions with those visuals? Seriously???

I think most people react just as you do, but they are mistaken. All the evidence of history is that no military action on the part of Canada will improve the circumstances of those thousands of innocent victims. There may be non-military actions that would help in the longer term, such as refusing to support regimes like Saudi Arabia, who perform dozens of beheadings every month, or supporting local democratic movements in the area, but there sure as hell is no quick fix. Only fools, which includes you and most of the public, imagine that there is.

NorthReport

MM

Please lay off the personal attacks. Tks.

NorthReport

Mission implausible: New war, new threat — no plan

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/10/07/this-is-a-mission-without-a-strategy/

NorthReport

This is clearly the Liberal game plan - will it work a second time for them?

Iraq: The Chrétien precedent

Sometimes the past is a funhouse mirror

 

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canada-in-iraq-the-chretien-prece...

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Trudeau's downplaying it, all right, just the way Debater downplayed Trudeau "whipping out fighter jets" comment, as the Liberals continue to drop in the polls. 

Trudeau downplays Cotler’s abstention on Iraq

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/10/08/trudeau-downplays-cotlers-abstention-...

 

I guess the difference between "abstaining" and being "absent" is if you're planning on running again

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Pondering -- you have more serious critics of Trudeau's precious perfect positions in this thread so why don't you address them?

When you are not complaining that I am posting too much you are complaining that I don't address everyone's points.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Flip flops are not about what they are "currently" (the word you emphasized) they are about consistency over time.

"Flip flop" is a perjorative immature and aggressive term that gained popularity in the US when the tea party used it against John Kerry on behalf of Bush.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
But there you are trying to characterize anyone who criticizes your dear leader for a flip flop as having a "patriarchal attitude." (And if anyone takes offense to that, you will accuse them of personally attacking you.)

That depends entirely on whether or not you meet this condition:

The notion that even with controversial issues a leader should pick a position then stick to it dogmatically right or wrong is an old-fashioned patriarchal attitude.

If you do, well, enough said.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
"But the Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, has taken a rather different position - or rather positions. When the idea of an international military campaign against Islamic State was first proposed last month, he spoke in favour of Canadian participation; now he is against it, having spent the intervening weeks saying he was undecided. Fair enough. Positions evolve. Only he still is not opposed to military intervention in principle: Only to Canada taking part in it. And he has not begun to explain why."
">http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Trudeau+stance+Iraq+mission+discredi...

Opinions on what Trudeau said and what he actually said are two different things. Trudeau spoke in favor of sending advisors not participating in combat. His reason for opposing air strikes by Canada is that he doesn't think it is the best way for us to contribute and that Harper has failed to make an argument for our participation in combat.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Trudeau has backed the Conservatives, but did not even show up for a debate on the Canadian contribution Tuesday night. Mulcair did.
">http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/18/justin_trudeau_getting_squ...

Another opinion piece almost entirely devoid of facts. Harper supporters will be trashing Trudeau and pumping Mulcair in the hopes of another 2011. Trudeau has long maintained the HOC is a sham, which it is, because Harper wasn't even there to participate in the "debate".

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The Liberals stance has also been fluid, from supporting air strikes last week to Trudeau's statement this week that his party wants to see what the government proposes before making a decision.
">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-readying-groundwork-for-canada-s-...

There is no quote from Trudeau stating that he supports Canadian air strikes and I don't believe he ever made one. Here is an expanded version of that journalist's opinion:

The issue Wednesday wasn't really about how many Canadian soldiers are advising Kurdish forces in Iraq. The point Mulcair and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau are determined to make is that the Conservatives are hiding their real plans from Canadians — even as their own positions evolve on a near daily basis.

Reporters asked Mulcair Wednesday for how the NDP felt about sending Canadian fighter jets to Iraq only to be told "there's no proposal on the table right now to do that.''

The NDP, he said, believes the focus should be on humanitarian aid.

The Liberals stance has also been fluid, from supporting air strikes last week to Trudeau's statement this week that his party wants to see what the government proposes before making a decision.

It's all about trust, you see.

"The prime minister is intent on going to war in Iraq,'' Trudeau accused Harper on Wednesday. "It's up to him to make that case to Canadians. He hasn't even begun."

"How much are Canadians going to pay for the prime minister's war in Iraq,'' Mulcair followed.

And so it went, back and forth, Mulcair and Trudeau.

Mulcair said there was no proposal for air strikes on the table and the writer said Trudeau had approved air strikes. It makes no sense and he doesn't provide a quote.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

On Thursday, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau slammed Harper for not making an “effort to build a non-partisan case for war.”
http://globalnews.ca/news/1595317/majority-of-canadians-back-use-of-figh...

On Thursday, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau slammed Harper for not making an “effort to build a non-partisan case for war.”

“Instead, he dares us to oppose his war, staking out not moral territory but political territory,” Trudeau said at a conference hosted by the think tank Canada2020. “Why aren’t we talking more about the kind of humanitarian aid that Canada can and must be engaged in, rather than trying to whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are? It just doesn’t work like that in Canada.”

Trudeau hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what Harper is doing. Note: Trudeau was speaking at a conference not in the HOC.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
On Thursday, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau said his party, which has already endorsed the Harper government’s deployment of special forces to Iraq, is willing to consider supporting Canadian fighter jets participating in the air war in Iraq, if the government recommends it.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/13/cnda-s13.html

And yet they could not quote him. That would have been widely reported if it were true. It's a spin article. It doesn't mention the advisory role of the special forces. What Trudeau might have said is that he would consider it if the government makes a case for it not if the government recommends it.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

"(ISIL) is a terrorist organization that is bent on killing anyone that disagrees with them. They are a threat to local security and Canada needs to be part of a solution that eliminates ISIS as a force to wreak havoc and violence with anyone who disagrees with them," he said.
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/4843553-trudeau-impresses-students-d...

What is your problem with that? Trudeau has said we should help in various non-combat roles.

Trudeau has from the beginning supported a temporary advisory role while stating that Harper is not being forthcoming enough with information on even the non-combat mission. There are no quotes from Trudeau supporting Canadian air strikes. He agrees that we have to contribute to the fight against ISIS but wants us to consider logistical areas in which Canada could excel.

He is not 100% opposed to a combat misson but says the case has not been made for it.

There is nothing inconsistent in Trudeau's position on Canada's response to ISIS.

Sean in Ottawa

Yeah yeah I should walk away from this stuff but three replies:

1) Pondering I want to make it clear, in case of ANY doubt that I am not asking you to post more. I am questioning why you singled me out to respond to when I was the least hostile to Trudeau in that thread (other than you of course).

2) Then your responses to the media article links -- the ones I provided were far, far more relevant than the stuff you produced a month ago to attack the NDP over the Martin government falling in spite of clear objective evidence to the contrary. I am not going to respond to your specific rebutals but the noting of your hypocrisy is irresistable.

3) Flip flop you call a term popularized by the Tea Party. This one is also irresistable. It is an old term way popular before the Tea Party and would be used in Canada regardless of whether they ever used it or not.

"Flip flop" is a perjorative immature and aggressive term that gained popularity in the US when the tea party used it against John Kerry on behalf of Bush."

BTW the Tea Party did not exist when the republicans were going after Kerry for a flip flop. Tea Party started in 2009. Kerry ran in 2004.

How about looking at the word?

Easy to find in web dictionaries: The word means "a sudden reversal of policy or strategy." It is widely used.

The word Flip Flop has been associated with Liberals long before any tea party.

It was used on the Pierre Trudeau over wage and price controls. It was used on Pierre Trudeau over the gas tax in 1980 (Clark's govenrment fell on the gas tax)

It was used on Stephane Dion by the Calgary Herald in 2008 to describe Dion's flip flop on the idea of running a deficit

It was used on Chretien over the GST and Free Trade.

It was used on Paul Martin with respect to his responses to adscam

In fact you will get 76,000 hits on Google for Liberal flip flop; 48,000 for NDP fLip flop; 24,000 for Conservative flip flop.

(At least the conservatives when they decide to fuck us don't change their minds so much)

Here is a lovely quote:

"I would like to hear Mr. Nicoll explain his great flip-flop, for three years ago, you know, as the Republican candidate for District Attorney, he bitterly denounced Tammany as a party run by bosses and in the interest of bossism.... Nicoll, who three years ago was denouncing Tammany, is its candidate to-day." -- New York Times 1890.

In the UK they use U-turn and in Australia Back-flip. All means the same. To suddenly change policy or direction.

 

 

Then there is your suggestion of a patriarchal attitude. Of course the word flip flop was carried into this thread through a quote from a Liberal (post 509) who happens to be a woman speaking about a man not the other way around.

And then I said this:

"People don't look back in history and remark much on evolving opinions of leaders but they will consider contradictions in actions -- so a contradiction in votes in the House would be interesting (although if the final position is popular not an election changer)."

How patriarchal is that. I wonder how people feel about you whipping out that card when you have a conflict even when it is irrelevant. Patriarchy is a serious issue. You trivializing it for your own purposes is quite sad.

I really wish that the next election would turn on a debate between you representing Trudeau and me representing the NDP. The result I am confident would be an NDP majority and the Liberals without party status.

 

 

Pages

Topic locked