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

616 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

MegB wrote:

Enquiring minds want to know.

The use of force IS outrageous. I don't think that question would be asked about all forms of violence. To pass it off as nothing but white male fascination with war isn't really telling the whole story.

Besides, if we are talking about Ukraine, that thread has been pretty active since January; the war only started in May. That is to say, the government of Ukraine only started fighting back around that time. Before that it was shootings, kidnappings, torture and murder.

As for those conflicts, it's  not as if there aren't attempts at a political solution on the table at the same time. The sad thing is when those settlements or offers are viewed as nothing but knuckling under to power. In that sense, I agree with yout point.

(edit)

@ Paladin

But ISIS has been beheading people for quite awhile; they just haven't been white Americans. For that matter, our allies in Saudi Arabia chop people's heads off all the time - 70 in the last year.

 

 

 

Unionist

MegB wrote:
Rabble takes a nuanced approach to war - it provides analysis, critique and criticism. It's nothing as simple as anti-war. As for babble, some of the most popular and well populated threads are the white male dominated war threads. As for warmongerers, one person's warmongerer is another's ally to insurrectionists.

babble policy wrote:
In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought.

This isn't about war. It's about opposing armed imperialist intervention - especially our own - in other people's affairs. I sympathize with quizzical's disappointment that we seemingly have to start debating that here, of all places. None of us in 2003 said, "let's go get that killer Saddam and his WMD!" I didn't see much support for, "let's go get that killer Gaddafi, who's murdering his own people, like all uncivilized despots do!". Nor have I seen much support for, "Let's keep our troops in Afghanistan till the job is done!"

Sadly, there are those who are brilliant geniuses when it comes to condemning the imperialist crimes of the past - but they're unable somehow to see the criminality of the current or next intervention. It's difficult - but this should be a gathering place for those who cherish world peace, sovereignty of all peoples, and stern opposition to those who would oppress, plunder, and enslave others.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

MegB wrote:

When my best friend and I were young parents, she was raising three boys and I one girl. Once they were all in bed, we'd flop exhausted on the couch and watch a movie, just hang for a while.

Inevitably, the noise level from upstairs would start to rise, there'd be banging and yelling, crying and snivelling. Too tired to move, my friend would yell, "don't make me come up there!" We get a good laugh out of that now, more than 20 years later.

To those of you who simply cannot or will not respectfully agree to disagree: DON'T MAKE ME COME UP THERE!!!!!!!

I think this is one of the most contemptuous, disrespectful, wrong-headed comments I have ever seen on babble. First, you start with a banal story about your uninteresting life, which we have all heard a hundred or a thousand times. Then, you cheerfully announce that this is how you view all of us, the babblers whose discussions you are allegedly moderating, as merely misbehaving, probably over-tired children. And we better shape up, or you'll put on your mommy face and come upstairs, and then we'll be very sorry.

Listen, MegB, whoever you are, these may not be the finest debates in the world, but I've been reading them and occasionally posting for a very long time. I believe some of my fellow babblers are smarter than others, and some hold views that I strongly disagree with, and some take liberties with the truth, but they are all adults debating subjects they care about, and they don't need a mommy to tell them to behave themselves.

If you have some specific problem with a post, or series of posts, then by all means, make that clear. But this comment is not that, and you should be ashamed of yourself for being so condescending and superior.

 

thorin_bane

MegB wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Welcome warmongers to the new babble! In the name of diversity and tolerance, amen.

got to tell my mom about this thread!! she told me, long ago now, she joined rabble back in 2003, because it was the only place around the net she found who had a consistent anti-war stance in the face of all the propaganda in the invasion of Iraq. 

finding it really really sad young minds are being harmed from the pushing of war propaganda. 

 

Rabble takes a nuanced approach to war - it provides analysis, critique and criticism. It's nothing as simple as anti-war. As for babble, some of the most popular and well populated threads are the white male dominated war threads. As for warmongerers, one person's warmongerer is another's ally to insurrectionists.

Genuine question here: why are you guys all hung up on armed conflict? Whether you're in favour or against, you sure can't seem to get enough of it. What gives? On the rare occasion I wade into a war thread, it's only to point out the humanitarian crises armed conflict creates, the mass deaths of non-combatants. Rarely does my post get a response. What, not interesting enough? It's more fun to argue about who is right and who is wrong than it is to see warfare for the fucked up thing it really is? Enquiring minds want to know.

Thank you mr dewar, and maybe we shouldn't throw around such broad generalizations. Considering Pondering is a woman and if I made a comment like that in the reverse I would be called a chauvanist/racest pig. Thanks.

Pondering

This just in:

Quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/17/mulcair-harper-iraq_n_5837620.ht...

Harper has confirmed that Canada has sent 69 special forces commandos to Iraq as part of a counter-terrorism campaign against the extremist al-Qaida splinter group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.

He maintains the deployment, which is to be reviewed within 30 days, is not a combat mission, that the commandos will only advise and assist Iraqi forces and Kurdish fighters who are resisting ISIL forces in northern Iraq.....

Quote:
But Mulcair says he can't support the mission when the government refuses even to reveal precisely when the commandos arrived in Iraq or when the 30 days will be up.

"We're saying that the only responsible position now with what we have available as information is to say No to Mr. Harper's mission in Iraq for one good and simple reason," "They're refusing to have a vote, they're refusing to provide full information, there's an artistic lack of clarity around what they're defining as a non-combat mission." The war in Afghanistan began in the same way, with a small contingent of special forces commandos, but wound up being "the longest war we've ever been involved in" at the cost of 160 lives, Mulcair argued."So yes, we're very, very concerned about the slippery slope that we appear to be on (in Iraq). This is a classic situation where it's going to expand."

Quote:
Trudeau acknowledged the deployment is likely to go beyond 30 days, given the "scale of the devastation and the humanitarian crisis in northern Iraq." Nevertheless, he threw his support behind the mission.

"I support the current mission as designed, with the caveat — the important caveat — that we continue to have parliamentary oversight, that we continue to have debates on this mission to make sure that it continues to be a mission that Canadians understand is important."

Trudeau called the situation in northern Iraq "a humanitarian catastrophe," with hundreds of thousands of displaced people whom Canada has a "responsibility to protect."

"Canadians want the Canadian government to continue to be a force for peace in the world in a way that is consistent with our values," he said.

"And for me, training (the) local army and providing a support role, non-combat, is perfectly acceptable as something that Canada has expertise in and should be able to share."

 

 

 

NorthReport

Mulcair refuses to back 'non-combat' deployment of Canadian forces to Iraq
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-refuses-to-back-non-combat-deploy...

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Sadly, there are those who are brilliant geniuses when it comes to condemning the imperialist crimes of the past - but they're unable somehow to see the criminality of the current or next intervention. It's difficult - but this should be a gathering place for those who cherish world peace, sovereignty of all peoples, and stern opposition to those who would oppress, plunder, and enslave others.

I agree with you Unionist. I consider myself one of those people, and I am as alarmed as you are. Yet we find ourselves on different sides in some things. Proof enough that those lines aren't all that clear once we get down to the nuts and bolts of things.

(edit)

And I heard Obama talking about how he was sending no combat troops. That's cold comfort, since those journalists weren't combat troops either.

 

 

Webgear

MegB wrote:

When my best friend and I were young parents, she was raising three boys and I one girl. Once they were all in bed, we'd flop exhausted on the couch and watch a movie, just hang for a while.

Inevitably, the noise level from upstairs would start to rise, there'd be banging and yelling, crying and snivelling. Too tired to move, my friend would yell, "don't make me come up there!" We get a good laugh out of that now, more than 20 years later.

To those of you who simply cannot or will not respectfully agree to disagree: DON'T MAKE ME COME UP THERE!!!!!!!

Sounds like verbal threats of violence against children to me. But I am glad everyone had a good laugh. 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

This isn't about war. It's about opposing armed imperialist intervention - especially our own - in other people's affairs. I sympathize with quizzical's disappointment that we seemingly have to start debating that here, of all places. None of us in 2003 said, "let's go get that killer Saddam and his WMD!" I didn't see much support for, "let's go get that killer Gaddafi, who's murdering his own people, like all uncivilized despots do!". Nor have I seen much support for, "Let's keep our troops in Afghanistan till the job is done!"

Sadly, there are those who are brilliant geniuses when it comes to condemning the imperialist crimes of the past - but they're unable somehow to see the criminality of the current or next intervention. It's difficult - but this should be a gathering place for those who cherish world peace, sovereignty of all peoples, and stern opposition to those who would oppress, plunder, and enslave others.

So you think people who are "unable somehow to see the criminality of the current or next intervention"

are not

people who are "cherish world peace, sovereignty of all peoples, and stern opposition to those who would oppress, plunder, and enslave others."

You do not have a monopoly on "good" in comparison to everyone else who must be "evil" or maybe just stupid because they don't see things the same way you do, or at least not as simplistically as you appear to.

You all ignored my posts which were attempts at exploring alternatives to military action in favor of attacking Meg's post for tone, therein proving her point. You are more interested in bickering endlessly over who should be allowed to say what on babble than you are in discussing the topic in any sort of depth.

I have not in this thread or anywhere else suggested that any of the posters against intervention don't care what happens to the Kurds, or are selfish and isolationist. I don't say you lack compassion for the people subject to the brutality of ISIS.

I am floored by the hostility of the "peace" movement. It's like you are determined to offend and repel people. So arrogant and self-righteousness in your certainty that you know exactly what everyone should do to bring peace to the Middle East and anyone who doesn't is either stupid or cruel and selfish. If you people could rule the world there would be nothing left to discuss.

I am a good kind and compassionate person who cares about those less fortunate than myself. I care about the environment and world peace. I support generous social programs and meeting our responsibilities to the First Nations. Yet in this thread I an others like myself have been labeled warmongers and treated as though we aren't worth the mud you scrape off your shoes.

We are so below you it is astounding we are permitted on the site.

You may not be quite so dramatically above everyone else as you think.

6079_Smith_W

Webgear wrote:

Sounds like verbal threats of violence against children to me. But I am glad everyone had a good laugh. 

I was going to make another comment but didn't want to distract. Since we're well past that anyway, here goes: one time when I was ready to pitch either the little ones or myself out a window, a friend gave me a bit of advice:

"It is our job to set the boundaries, and theirs to test them"

Since proven true, since mine invariably push the arguments as far as they possibly can go, until I set a hard boundary.

No editorial comment intended of course, This really does just speak to the parent/child relationship.

 

Pondering

MegB wrote:
Inevitably, the noise level from upstairs would start to rise, there'd be banging and yelling, crying and snivelling. Too tired to move, my friend would yell, "don't make me come up there!" We get a good laugh out of that now, more than 20 years later.

Webgear wrote:

Sounds like verbal threats of violence against children to me. But I am glad everyone had a good laugh.

My mom used to use "or else" and I never asked what. I never imagined it was a physical threat. "Don't make me come up there" in this case could easily mean "or we will put you in separate rooms to sleep", or "we will cancel tomorrow's picnic".

cco

Pondering wrote:

My mom used to use "or else" and I never asked what. I never imagined it was a physical threat.

It's fortunate for you that you grew up in a family where that was unthinkable. (I'm pretty sure it's not what MegB intended, either.) Not everyone was so lucky.

That said, moderating is a beyond-thankless job and I wish people would stop piling on MegB for trying to cool tempers a bit here.

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:
but they are all adults debating subjects they care about,...

Have you read this thread? This isn't debating or discussing a subject.

Unionist

BRAVO TOM MULCAIR!!

[url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-refuses-to-back-non-combat-deploy... refuses to back 'non-combat' deployment of Canadian forces to Iraq[/url]

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

BRAVO TOM MULCAIR!!

[url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-refuses-to-back-non-combat-deploy... refuses to back 'non-combat' deployment of Canadian forces to Iraq[/url]

You do realize that he isn't opposed in principle:

"They're refusing to have a vote, they're refusing to provide full information, there's an artistic lack of clarity around what they're defining as a non-combat mission."
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-refuses-to-back-non-combat-deployment-of-canadian-forces-to-iraq-1.2011509#ixzz3DcBcUQGu

That's his reason for not backing it, not being opposed to participating. This way he can't be accused of not wanting to support the effort. He just needs to know more about it.

Paladin1

Flight dates and timings seems like a trivial thing to put ahead of saving lives.

Unionist

Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau, devoid of morality and principles, supports Harper because his handlers tell him to.

Whatever I may think about his father's imposition of the War Measures Act, and agreeing to Cruise missile testing in Canada - Pierre Trudeau never descended to the ugly depths of this mannequin son of his. I knew Pierre Trudeau. Justin is no Pierre Trudeau.

 

mmphosis

U.S. is off to a war that doesn't make sense — again

Neil Macdonald (cbc.ca) wrote:

Dick Cheney.

This is the fellow who was practically in charge of the massive deceptions the Bush administration used to justify the last U.S. invasion and war that led to much of the chaos going on right now.

Cheney promoted the idea that Saddam Hussein was somehow behind the attacks of 9/11, which was nonsense, yet was accepted as truth by most Americans for years. 

He was also behind the weapons of mass destruction canard, one of the most destructive falsehoods in modern history – one that directly led to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Ebonhand (most liked comment and as usual the comments are better than the actual article) wrote:
Why is Cheney not serving time as a war criminal?

> why are you guys all hung up on armed conflict?

Good question.  Maybe time to give this thread a rest.

> Whether you're in favour or against, you sure can't seem to get enough of it. What gives?

Again. You are right.  I give in.

> On the rare occasion I wade into a war thread, it's only to point out the humanitarian crises armed conflict creates, the mass deaths of non-combatants. Rarely does my post get a response. What, not interesting enough?

I appreciate you pointing out the humanitarian crises armed conflict creates.

> It's more fun to argue about who is right and who is wrong than it is to see warfare for the fucked up thing it really is?

War is hell.  I appreciate all of you reminding me of this.

MegB

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

My mom used to use "or else" and I never asked what. I never imagined it was a physical threat.

It's fortunate for you that you grew up in a family where that was unthinkable. (I'm pretty sure it's not what MegB intended, either.) Not everyone was so lucky.

That said, moderating is a beyond-thankless job and I wish people would stop piling on MegB for trying to cool tempers a bit here.

I grew up in an abusive home. I know what threats are and I know what it feels like to see them carried out. The "don't make me come up there" is akin to "don't make me stop the car," or "if you don't behave we're leaving the store." If you have kids, you know what it all means. Turning my post into something on the dark side is beyone pitiable. Can you not take criticism, even in the midst of being personally critical yourself, without making it something it's not?

No, the need to be correct, to be right, surpasses all. This is a thankless job, but I love rabble and I care about the people who contribute. To the babbler who called my life boring, fuck you. I'm an activist and a freelance writer. I actually do what I believe and write about it and publish. Been doing that for almost 30 years. I have successful campaigns under my belt, thanks to wonderful people who contributed knowledge I didn't have, and know what works and what doesn't.

My name is Meg Borthwick. I've been a part of rabble since 2001, now moderate babble and am a freelance writer who is privileged to have her original content published here. Feel free to do a search, you'll see what I write and what I'm about. You want to challenge me, criticize me? Read me first, then do your best work.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I neither know nor care anything about your life, Meg Borthwick. I was commenting only on the outrageous post I quoted. I admit that I allowed sarcasm to get the best of me in that second sentence by calling your life "uninteresting" because your anecdote was. For that, I apologize. However, my criticism of your post stands. It was a comment which infantilized all contributors to babble by treating them as misbehaving children. With such an impressive resume, you should be able to do better.

MegB

Michael, if your job were to moderate this forum, you would have a very different perspective on how people behave towards each other. I see much more than appears in threads. I would never infantilize anyone unless there was a prolonged history of behavior. Years of watching the behavior of others gives you a perspective you don't get from being a contributor.

That you neither know nor care about my life, yet take on the ignorant authority to criticize it, is nothing to me. From the responses I've received, it seems more that my second post, about guys getting a hard on about war, is what's pissing people off. Attack the personal and avoid the logical. Really? Surely y'all can do better.

NDPP

MegB wrote:

 I see much more than appears in threads.

Please explain...

mmphosis

I don't think that there is any right or wrong, agree or disagree.  War is a quagmire.  I don't know the US president very well, but I think that some recent photos in the news tell a story.

On the one hand, I think that Obama tries to appease all of the many special interest groups that want to continue warring:  (sic) War brings in profits for weapsons makers, oil barons, drug dealers, contractors, and other US corporations.  On the other hand he has succeeded in reducing the United States military involvement in these wars:  the US has pulled ground troups out of Iraq, and is finally withdrawing the last troups from Afghanistan.

There is no evidence that the the man with the black hood on his head is not a US contractor, or that money and weapons being supplied don't come from the private interests from the US or Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.  The news photos of black flags with white writing on them seem manufactured.

I think that it is the same story in Ukraine where private interests from abroad may have paid billions to bring unrest, paying so-called protestors to fight on the Maidan.  We don't see pictures in the news anymore of the Maidan.  Why is that?  Is anything going on there still?

Like recent images from the Middle East of westerners being killed, the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was horrifying news.  These horrifying events in the news push people to over-react.  But, I think we need to take all news that we read with a grain of salt.  I am not going to conspiracy theory here, and yet as I type MH17 in the search bar, the words black box and conspiracy appear.  The initial Dutch investigation has revealed that MH17 was struck by 'high energy objects'.  Beyond that the western media seems to have become very quiet about MH17.

I would hope that Canada would stay out of these quagmires.  Or, if we want to get involved maybe there is a way to help the many many refugees from Libya, Iraq, Ukraine, Syria and other places caught in the middle of what appear to be manufactured wars.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

MegB wrote:

Michael, if your job were to moderate this forum, you would have a very different perspective on how people behave towards each other. I see much more than appears in threads. I would never infantilize anyone unless there was a prolonged history of behavior. Years of watching the behavior of others gives you a perspective you don't get from being a contributor.

Well, as I understand it, the job of a moderator is to determine whether a particular post, or a particular babbler, is in violation of the terms of service, or whatever rabble calls it, and in case of a violation, to take appropriate action. As long as moderators restrict themselves to this function, I may disagree with their decisions, but at least I will agree that they are performing their duties properly. If they go beyond this, I have a problem. To paraphrase William Munny: "Perspective don't enter into it."

MegB

NDPP wrote:

MegB wrote:

 I see much more than appears in threads.

Please explain...

I get the messages and the complaints in the Abuse Queue. It gives me some perspective on the relationships people have with each other. I do try to ignore that and simply look at a post or thread and determine whether it violates babble policy, or the spirit of it. I try very hard to avoid personalization but I'm human. I make mistakes.

If babble were a perfect place, what would we talk about? No, it's diverse and scrappy and a whole lot of other stuff.

Unionist

Maybe the recent posts could go to rabble reactions, or something?

I think the topic of this thread is important enough to merit discussion - especially now that Mulcair, unexpectedly and out of character, has actually taken a partial position against Canadian involvement in Iraq, while Trudeau feels secure in beating drums of war under humanitarian guise.

 

Sean in Ottawa

[deleted becuase crossposted with other replies]

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

BRAVO TOM MULCAIR!!

[url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-refuses-to-back-non-combat-deploy... refuses to back 'non-combat' deployment of Canadian forces to Iraq[/url]

You do realize that he isn't opposed in principle:

"They're refusing to have a vote, they're refusing to provide full information, there's an artistic lack of clarity around what they're defining as a non-combat mission."
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-refuses-to-back-non-combat-deployment-of-canadian-forces-to-iraq-1.2011509#ixzz3DcBcUQGu

That's his reason for not backing it, not being opposed to participating. This way he can't be accused of not wanting to support the effort. He just needs to know more about it.

Pondering is there no point at which even you will refuse to take up Trudeau's defense by slamming Mulcair? Trudeau unreservedly supports action. I told you what that actually means. At least Mulcair wants the discussion; and it will happen if he is listned to despite his reason. Which is what Canadians deserve. Trudeau doesn't think Canadians deserve anything other then what benefits him. I say to you, and him, "Pondering", what would you have said to that spouse who asked me "why I was sending her husband to die"? Especially since you feel in obligation to advocate those near and dear to you go, and neither does he. And don't give me this disrespectful, nonsense about choosing to serve. That is what it is, that rejoiner of yours, everytime you chose to use it is disrespectful, and frankly inhumane, nonsense. What would YOU have said to that Serviceman's wife?

Unionist

Good for Neil MacDonald:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/u-s-is-off-to-a-war-that-doesn-t-make-sense-again.... is off to a war that doesn't make sense — again[/url]

Quote:

America is going to war again. People are scared again.

The American news media have a scary monster in the Middle East again, and commentators are practically saluting on air. Again.

Dick Cheney, smirking, is back onstage. Last week, at a speech in Washington, he called for immediate military action, "sustained … across several fronts."

"The president must understand we are at war,” he declared, relishing the new moment. “We must do what it takes, for as long as it takes, to win." [...]

In recent decades, from Vietnam to Grenada to Lebanon to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan to Somalia and Central America and Iraq, U.S. military interventions have at best done no good. Mostly, they’ve made things a lot worse.

The American secretary of homeland security says there is no credible threat to America. Perhaps it’s time to let other nations sort out their problems, because that’s what they’re going to do in any event.

Or, let's go help the poor Kurds, or Iraqis, or Shi'ites, or whoever... stay tuned to find out who today's WEE (Worst Enemy Ever) is!

thorin_bane

Unionist wrote:

Good for Neil MacDonald:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/u-s-is-off-to-a-war-that-doesn-t-make-sense-again.... is off to a war that doesn't make sense — again[/url]

Quote:

America is going to war again. People are scared again.

The American news media have a scary monster in the Middle East again, and commentators are practically saluting on air. Again.

Dick Cheney, smirking, is back onstage. Last week, at a speech in Washington, he called for immediate military action, "sustained … across several fronts."

"The president must understand we are at war,” he declared, relishing the new moment. “We must do what it takes, for as long as it takes, to win." [...]

In recent decades, from Vietnam to Grenada to Lebanon to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan to Somalia and Central America and Iraq, U.S. military interventions have at best done no good. Mostly, they’ve made things a lot worse.

The American secretary of homeland security says there is no credible threat to America. Perhaps it’s time to let other nations sort out their problems, because that’s what they’re going to do in any event.

Or, let's go help the poor Kurds, or Iraqis, or Shi'ites, or whoever... stay tuned to find out who today's WEE (Worst Enemy Ever) is!

Shocked when I read it at work today. And better than the news organization he works for. Comment section is pretty telling as well.

Pondering

From post 256 this thread

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/17/mulcair-harper-iraq_n_5837620.ht...

Quote:
But Mulcair says he can't support the mission when the government refuses even to reveal precisely when the commandos arrived in Iraq or when the 30 days will be up.

"We're saying that the only responsible position now with what we have available as information is to say No to Mr. Harper's mission in Iraq for one good and simple reason," "They're refusing to have a vote, they're refusing to provide full information, there's an artistic lack of clarity around what they're defining as a non-combat mission." The war in Afghanistan began in the same way, with a small contingent of special forces commandos, but wound up being "the longest war we've ever been involved in" at the cost of 160 lives, Mulcair argued."So yes, we're very, very concerned about the slippery slope that we appear to be on (in Iraq). This is a classic situation where it's going to expand."

Quote:
Trudeau acknowledged the deployment is likely to go beyond 30 days, given the "scale of the devastation and the humanitarian crisis in northern Iraq."

"I support the current mission as designed, with the caveat — the important caveat — that we continue to have parliamentary oversight, that we continue to have debates on this mission to make sure that it continues to be a mission that Canadians understand is important."........

"And for me, training (the) local army and providing a support role, non-combat, is perfectly acceptable as something that Canada has expertise in and should be able to share."

I think Canadians will appreciate Trudeau's qualified support for the non-combat mission. I don't think they will appreciate the nuances of Mulcair's fence sitting angry bluster about dates and artistic lack of clarity etc.

6079_Smith_W

The "nuance" seems to be whether one trusts that Harper is being honest and truthful, as Trudeau is doing, or whether one questions whether this really is "non-combat", or if it is something that will lead to deeper involvement, as Mulcair is doing.

It is hardly nuance; in fact it is something a lot of people are questioning, and with good reason. As I said, I heard Obama this afternoon trying his damndest to claim that was NOT what was going on. Obviously, because it is the very thing many are suspicious of.

Though I do have to smile at the notion of "parliamentary oversight". In the Harper majority, even in the Harper minority which didn't give a damn what parliament ruled, what the hell is that supposed to mean?

 

 

 

takeitslowly

Attacking Isis directly, by air strikes or special operations forces, is a very tempting option available to policymakers, with immediate (but not always good) results. Unfortunately, when the west fights fire with fire, we feed into a cycle of outrage, recruitment, organizing and even more fighting that goes back decades. This is exactly what happened in Iraq during the height of a civil war in 2006 and 2007, and it can only be expected to occur again.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/chelsea-manning-isi...

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
It is hardly nuance; in fact it is something a lot of people are questioning, and with good reason. As I said, I heard Obama this afternoon trying his damndest to claim that was NOT what was going on. Obviously, because it is the very thing many are suspicious of.

Canada and the US have different involvement. I realize most people here believe that escalation is inevidable but at this point the only thing being approved is a bunch of advisers for a month. Mission creep may be a concern but I don't think there is significant opposition to the advisers going which is all that Trudeau has approved.

The polls should be showing the impact of this and Mulcair's platform releases within the next few weeks so we shall soon see the impact.

jjuares

Mulcair's position in the long run is going to help the NDP. Trudeau hitched his wagon to Harper and nobody is going to give a damn about his silly caveat.

jjuares

Double post

6079_Smith_W

Polls are not to be ignored, but neither would I recommend being led about by the nose by them. Poll results are far from the worst potential outcome of this decision.

 

jjuares

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Polls are not to be ignored, but neither would I recommend being led about by the nose by them. Poll results are far from the worst potential outcome of this decision.

 


Yes, and the thing about polls on military ventures is that they are almost always good at first. But we should always remember the old saying about the first casualty.

Slumberjack

MegB wrote:
I try very hard to avoid personalization but I'm human. I make mistakes. If babble were a perfect place, what would we talk about? No, it's diverse and scrappy and a whole lot of other stuff.

Oh, I'm so saving this for later.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

From post 256 this thread

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/17/mulcair-harper-iraq_n_5837620.ht...

Quote:
But Mulcair says he can't support the mission when the government refuses even to reveal precisely when the commandos arrived in Iraq or when the 30 days will be up.

"We're saying that the only responsible position now with what we have available as information is to say No to Mr. Harper's mission in Iraq for one good and simple reason," "They're refusing to have a vote, they're refusing to provide full information, there's an artistic lack of clarity around what they're defining as a non-combat mission." The war in Afghanistan began in the same way, with a small contingent of special forces commandos, but wound up being "the longest war we've ever been involved in" at the cost of 160 lives, Mulcair argued."So yes, we're very, very concerned about the slippery slope that we appear to be on (in Iraq). This is a classic situation where it's going to expand."

Quote:
Trudeau acknowledged the deployment is likely to go beyond 30 days, given the "scale of the devastation and the humanitarian crisis in northern Iraq."

"I support the current mission as designed, with the caveat — the important caveat — that we continue to have parliamentary oversight, that we continue to have debates on this mission to make sure that it continues to be a mission that Canadians understand is important."........

"And for me, training (the) local army and providing a support role, non-combat, is perfectly acceptable as something that Canada has expertise in and should be able to share."

I think Canadians will appreciate Trudeau's qualified support for the non-combat mission. I don't think they will appreciate the nuances of Mulcair's fence sitting angry bluster about dates and artistic lack of clarity etc.

That's classic double-speak Pondering; of course you like. When are you enlisting?

Sean in Ottawa

Slumberjack wrote:

MegB wrote:
I try very hard to avoid personalization but I'm human. I make mistakes. If babble were a perfect place, what would we talk about? No, it's diverse and scrappy and a whole lot of other stuff.

Oh, I'm so saving this for later.

This might be in the wrong place but it is in context and perhaps that is more important.

Good this was said -- it's productive.

At times, knowing mistakes can be made, it would be a better mod practice to come into a thread with a tone of calm reason rather than as angry parent raising the temperature. I think there is often a mod practice of remembering some calmer intervention from a different time and place and using that previous more reasoned intervention as a rationale for coming in hot in the current thread.

It should be policy that there is a progressive approach to moderation. The first intervention in ANY thread should be without swearwords, as much as possible without taking a side, and certainly without slamming whole categories of people. It should be represented as calmer than the rest of the thread not even more aggressive. Leadership includes the examples you offer. This allows people who disagree to respond also in a calm way. If you come in hot and heavy there is no calm response available and the site has not been moderated -- it has only had another belligerent added to it. You may think a moderate first intervention is a waste of time but it actually is the source of any credibility you claim to have and the only rationale possible for a stronger response later. And of course it offers the ability to step away if a mistake is in fact being made. I don't think the moderators have any more right to humiliate people they disagree with than anyone else.

I wrote a reply earlier that was harsher than this but because the tone has backed off somewhat this more calm approach is now possible. There is a lesson there. The moderators do have a role in setting the tone of the site not just in taking sides when they think that is what they want to do.

I also think that moderators could encourage people to provide more analysis than partisan cheering. This is a direction that can be given to all sides of the obvious divisions here as contrary to popular belief there are people who only post partisan material on both sides without analysis. This leads to fights as there is no middle ground in cheering for your team and it leads to a sense that this place is nothing more than a model Question Period where the show and bravado is more important than the substance. If anything, this place should respect more the committees where there is constructive discussion, cooperation adn less open aggressive partisanship.

For others, the tone over time of posts matters. If you want to come here just to slag the other team please use Twitter. You will reach more people and that is not really what this place was intended for. As a rule I suggest that if you won't look critically at your own team and admit some criticism of it, then you are just cheerleading and your posts including all those lauding your team are devalued. As well this place works best when people come from different political ideas and discuss honestly issues and ideas without the posturing. Unfortunately that almost never happens any more. I am not saying perspectives and biases are to be hidden -- it is just that they should not take over completely and so emotionally that the other perspective cannot be appreciated.

6079_Smith_W

There has already been a request to move this discussion of tone and stuff like collection of ammunition out of here. We have a recently-opened thread that might be more appropriate.

Not saying that to try and shut it down, but if we start talking about everything everywhere things are bound to get a bit confusing.

 

Slumberjack

Well, we don't want to add to any confusion.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
That's classic double-speak Pondering; of course you like. When are you enlisting?

I already did Arthur!  I have just been pulling your leg. I'm a General so you ought to salute me and be more respectful.

MegB

Michael Moriarity wrote:

MegB wrote:

Michael, if your job were to moderate this forum, you would have a very different perspective on how people behave towards each other. I see much more than appears in threads. I would never infantilize anyone unless there was a prolonged history of behavior. Years of watching the behavior of others gives you a perspective you don't get from being a contributor.

Well, as I understand it, the job of a moderator is to determine whether a particular post, or a particular babbler, is in violation of the terms of service, or whatever rabble calls it, and in case of a violation, to take appropriate action. As long as moderators restrict themselves to this function, I may disagree with their decisions, but at least I will agree that they are performing their duties properly. If they go beyond this, I have a problem. To paraphrase William Munny: "Perspective don't enter into it."

As I've said many times before, rabble cannot afford robot moderators. You're stuck with humans, with opinions, ideas, flaws and strengths. In fact rabble itself makes no pretense of being objective. You want the pretense of objectivity, try the Toronto Star.

Sean in Ottawa

MegB wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

MegB wrote:

Michael, if your job were to moderate this forum, you would have a very different perspective on how people behave towards each other. I see much more than appears in threads. I would never infantilize anyone unless there was a prolonged history of behavior. Years of watching the behavior of others gives you a perspective you don't get from being a contributor.

Well, as I understand it, the job of a moderator is to determine whether a particular post, or a particular babbler, is in violation of the terms of service, or whatever rabble calls it, and in case of a violation, to take appropriate action. As long as moderators restrict themselves to this function, I may disagree with their decisions, but at least I will agree that they are performing their duties properly. If they go beyond this, I have a problem. To paraphrase William Munny: "Perspective don't enter into it."

As I've said many times before, rabble cannot afford robot moderators. You're stuck with humans, with opinions, ideas, flaws and strengths. In fact rabble itself makes no pretense of being objective. You want the pretense of objectivity, try the Toronto Star.

You could try polite, even handed, fair and moderate. You can apply progressive moderating rather than 0-60 in ten seconds. You can try respect for other people at the same level you want for yourself. You can follow your own rules about personal attacks. Humans can pull off all those things. You would likely find the tone would be better here if you lead with the tone you want rather than escalating the tone you claim you want to avoid. It is fun to be sarcastic. I can see you enjoy it but that is not the job of a moderator.

And when challenged don't just come back with it is hard to be a moderator. If you are not up for it then try something else.

Slumberjack

Pondering wrote:
I think Canadians will appreciate Trudeau's qualified support for the non-combat mission.

Unless it involves caskets being flown back to Canada from the far reaches of the empire, at least enough of them to stir the public from the depths of their unconsciousness, I wouldn't say it amounts to appreciation.  It’s more like a general and blissful lack of interest.  This is really what all the political leaders get by on.  The same goes for election platforms.  People mostly vote along traditional lines, and the politically fickle, for whom a favour here or there makes all the difference in the world when it comes time to vote, are the segment we depend on the most to make or break the political careers of one corporate faction or another.

MegB

Quote:
And when challenged don't just come back with it is hard to be a moderator. If you are not up for it then try something else.
That's progressive. Telling someone whose job is unecessarily difficult that they should just go elsewhere. Nice. 0-60, would that be hours? Years? Because the same behavioral issues are ongoing. A lot of complaints have to line up in the abuse queue before either Catchfire or I respond.

So, either we don't respond to satisfy all or we respond too quickly to be fair. Like I've never heard any of this before, ad nauseum. Anyway, I'm breaking the rules about hijacking a thread. I'll be going elsewhere. Maybe open a rabble reactions thread.

Also, remember, I am  a babbler as well, have been for 13 years. About 25% of my activity here is non-moderating.

Sean in Ottawa

No I did not say you should go elsewhere without qualification -- just that you can't blame the job for your difficulty doing it. And you should not reject all criticism under that cloak. There is a difference between that and what you are trying to twist my words into saying. Don't play games with that. I am an adult and am not interested.

I have explained my objections in more detail and constructively. If you are immune to it then so be it. I think the style of moderation is a major problem for this place and you are not the only people invested here so it is not unreasonable that you hear comment.

Maybe you should try something different than coming in after waiting till things are that bad or going in nasty pre-maturely-- don't wait till the comments pile up and then come in hot and nasty. Come in earlier, more measured and give direction that will not be so easily rejected because it is meant to be hostile. And don't just do that once to say you did but make that the approach consistently. This is not a novel approach this is what moderation really is and over time things could get better.

Your approach too often is hostile at the start and then retreating to saying your job is hard. Maybe it would be less hard if you did it differently. But perhaps there is no point to this becuase you feel by virtue of your position that you need take no direction or even listen to what you don't enjoy hearing.

I am not the first to say the things I am saying and certainly nowhere near the harshest. Some others walk away. Some share their concerns but won't openly with you or on the boards because they want to stay and not be a target themselves. I have also heard from people who give this as a reason for losing hope here and leaving but don't want the moderator flame on the way out. True it is not a majority who explain themsevles at all-- the majority that leave just stop coming without explanation but the monitoring is one of the most common reasons I hear as people walk out the door. And it is the reason I have taken breaks from this site myself.

You may think that this top-down power structure means as a lowly commentator I have no right to criticize but when people write to me saying I have an obligation due to connections with others and my previous investment here to stay and I should not leave I feel I must say something, trying to put it less angry than I feel but still plain and direct.

Paladin1

People treat moderators like they treat the UN. 

Supportive until they don't agree with a decision then they are wrong and a part of the problem.

Pages

Topic locked