LIVE STREAM FROM CANADA 2020 - JUSTIN TRUDEAU SPEAKING
Wow. Justin Trudeau is ripping Stephen Harper on his evasive behaviour on the Iraq War, particuarly in 2003 when he signed on with George Bush.
Says Harper has refused to lay out a clear and reliable case for the Iraq War.
http://canada2020.ca/canada-2020-live/
This is an impressive speech by Trudeau. He's discussing Bush & Harper's misguided Iraq War rhetoric in 2003.
Does anyone think that Trudeau and the libs are going to vote with the cons to go to Iraq? I think they will because Justin's handlers and staff are Paul Martin's staff and he also wanted to go to Iraq 10 years ago.
“Why aren’t we talking more about the kind of humanitarian aid that Canada can and must be engaged in, rather than, you know, trying to whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are,”
-Mr. Trudeau
I realize this is about votes, political positioning and public support but the problem with statements like this is that in practice it doesn't pan out how it sounds. You can't send humanitarian aid workers with supplies into a violate situation like that without some form of force protection (ie security). Best case senairio they're robbed of their supplies and said supplies are used by the agressors. Worst case they get their heads sawed off.
Does anyone think that Trudeau and the libs are going to vote with the cons to go to Iraq? I think they will because Justin's handlers and staff are Paul Martin's staff and he also wanted to go to Iraq 10 years ago.
Where did you get this idea?
Justin Trudeau's principal advisers have nothing to do with Paul Martin. Gerald Butts has known Justin since their McGill days in the early 1990's and has never worked for Paul Martin. He worked for Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals. Same for Katie Telford.
Most of Justin's key advisers & staff are people in their 40's like him who are of a different generation than the old Martin-Chrétien folks.
Harper likely wants a clear fight with Trudeau and Mulcair on Iraq
October 2, 2014
John Geddes
The big draw of the day was, of course, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. He gave a speech framing his grave reservations about Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s plan to propose that Canadian fighter jets be sent into action in northern Iraq. But Trudeau went further, in a brief interview on stage with Canada 2020’s Don Newman after his speech, suggesting Harper wants to create a clear partisan contrast on the issue.
“The Liberal party will of course look forward to and participate in and ask tough questions in the coming debate,” Trudeau said. “But I don’t think it would surprise anyone to hear me say that I really think the Prime Minister, so far, has not understood that there is an extremely high responsibility on him to be open and forthright and make the case for this.”
Then Trudeau got to the political crux: “Indeed, it seems he has decided he wants the opposition parties to vote against this military adventure of his.” If Trudeau is right, then the coming debate should be seen as a bid by the Prime Minister to position himself as resolute against the Islamic State terrorists, while Trudeau and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair are unwilling to bomb the bad guys.
----
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/highlights-from-first-day-of-cana...
'No such thing as surgical strike so civilian casualties in US anti-IS-war inevitable'
http://rt.com/op-edge/192504-us-isis-terrorism-war-intelligence/
"I think as you can probably tell from the coverage of the international media, especially US media, I think the population here...is really kind of kept in the dark exactly by what is really taking place..."
Canada Ponders Next Step of Iraq Mission (audio)
http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/2014/09/27/canada-ponders-next-stage-of-iraq-...
"This week on The House, as the federal government considers what to do next in Iraq, the US Ambassador to Canada, Bruce Heyman, explains to Evan Solomon what the Obama administration is hoping Canada will contribute to the fight against ISIS
[url=https://ricochet.media/en/81/canada-heavily-involved-isis]Canada more involved in new Iraq war than previously reported[/url]
The frenzy of debate surrounding Canada's role in the military campaign against ISIS is missing one key ingredient: Ricochet has learned that our troops are already involved in the war effort, and will continue to be regardless of the decision made by Parliament.
That’s because, be they combat or other types of ancillary operations, the conduct of the war is not confined to Iraq or Syria.
Clarity on the question of precisely how many Canadian Special Operations soldiers are being deployed to assist the Kurdish Regional Government of Iraq's Peshmerga forces is important. Just as important, however, are the number of preexisting arrangements which find Canadian Forces personnel serving in capacities which could involve them in operations against ISIS. These arrangements are part of what has been termed the US-based “Gulf Security Architecture.”
ANALYSIS How ISIS and Syria drove a stake through the Arab Spring
The rise of ISIS is a setback for reform in a region that is crying out for it
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-isis-and-syria-drove-a-stake-through-th...
Very proud of Justin Trudeau & the Liberals today.
Contrary to the prediction in the title of this thread, LPC will not be supporting Harper's motion to go to war in Iraq
----
Liberal Party of Canada cannot and will not support Prime Minister’s motion to go to war in Iraq
Remarks by Liberal Party of Canada Leader Justin Trudeau
3 October 2014
With this motion, the Prime Minister has finally said in Canada what he said in New York City more than a week ago. He is intent on taking Canada to war in Iraq.
ISIL is a threat both to the region and to global security.
ISIL murders ethnic and religious minorities across Iraq and Syria.
They murder innocent civilians, humanitarian workers, and journalists.
These awful acts have been fully documented – often by the perpetrators themselves.
This is why the Liberal Party supported a 30-day, non-combat role on good faith and on which we were briefed.
This time, instead of briefings, there has only been overheated rhetoric.
Liberals will take the following core principles into the debate next week.
One: That Canada does have a role to play to confront humanitarian crises and security threats in the world.
Two: That when a government considers deploying our men and women in uniform, there must be a clear mission overall and a clear role for Canada within that mission.
Three: That the case for deploying our Forces must be made openly and transparently, based on clear and reliable, dispassionately presented facts.
And four: That Canada’s role must reflect the broad scope of Canadian capabilities. And how best we can help.
Unlike the Prime Minister, Liberals believe Canada can make a more helpful contribution to the international effort to combat ISIL than aging war planes.
I think Canadians have a lot more to offer than that. We can be resourceful, and there are significant, substantial, non-combat roles that Canada can play.
And some we can play better than many – or perhaps any — of our allies.
Whether they are strategic airlift, training, or medical support.
We have the capabilities to meaningfully assist – in a non-combat role – a well-defined international mission.
The fact remains: the Prime Minister has not been upfront with Canadians about his plans.
The Prime Minister and the government have given us no reason to believe that once in combat they will be able to limit our role.
Their overheated and moralistic rhetoric is being used to justify more than just air strikes.
It is an attempt to justify a war.
For Canadians it’s all too familiar, particularly from this Prime Minister.
The 2003 Iraq war was waged on false pretenses and flawed intelligence.
It was a mission that destabilized the region, sowed further conflict, cost our allies three trillion dollars, and cost thousands of people their lives.
The world is still dealing with the consequences of that mistake.
Let us never forget how that mission was sold to the public.
Back in 2003, this prime minister called President Bush’s Iraq war a matter of “freedom, democracy and civilization itself.”
We know the Iraq fiasco haunts the choices we have to make today. But we cannot make the wrong decision now because the wrong decision was made then.
Canada has asked a lot of our men and women in uniform over the last decade. And too often they have returned home only to be let down.
If we are to ask more of them now, our deliberations in this house should be honest and forthright to show ourselves worthy of the valour and strength we know our Forces always show in the field.
We owe them that.
We think there is a role for Canada to be involved in the fight against ISIL.
But there is a clear line between non-combat and combat.
It is much easier to cross that line than to cross back.
It always is easier to get into a war than to get out of one.
The Prime Minister has a sacred responsibility to be honest and truthful with people, especially about matters of life and death. At the end of every decision to enter combat is a brave Canadian in harm’s way. We owe them clarity. We owe them a plan.
Most of all, we owe them the truth.
The Prime Minister has offered none of those.
The Liberal Party of Canada cannot and will not support this Prime Minister’s motion to go to war in Iraq.
---
http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/blog/justin-trudeau-speech-iraq/
I congratulate Justin Trudeau on making a fairly coherent speech, and coming to the right conclusion, to vote against Harper's war. Perhaps coincidentally, the Globe and Mail has today published what they call a debate between John Baird and Tom Mulcair. It's actually just a pair of duelling essays, with no back and forth. Votes and comments are overwhelmingly in favour of Mulcair. I'm going to quote his essay in full, on the theory that Mulcair owns the copyright, and would want it to be widely shared. Compare, if you will, the depth of knowledge and understanding shown in this essay in contrast to the much touted, but almost content free, speech by Trudeau.
Just four weeks after deploying Canadian special forces to Iraq — with no debate or vote in Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is proposing a major escalation of Canada’s involvement in that war.
A prime minister has no more sacred duty than accountability for the decision to send young Canadian women and men to fight, and perhaps die, in a foreign war. The Prime Minister is sending these troops to Iraq in your name. He wants your support for sending them there. But let’s be clear: he doesn’t want to answer any of your questions before he does it.
If you’re tempted to think that’s an exaggeration, consider Mr. Harper’s own words on the subject: “Mr. Speaker, you can understand, I neither have the will nor the desire to get into detailed discussions of military operations here.”
That’s worth repeating: The Prime Minister is sending Canadian soldiers to war in Iraq, but he doesn’t want to discuss the details before sending them there. Neither the will, nor the desire.And it’s not just on the “details” that the Prime Minister has gone silent. Mr. Harper hasn’t outlined a broad strategic blueprint for the mission. He can’t even answer the most basic questions of fact about the length or breadth of our commitment.
What contribution have our American allies requested? No answer.
How much will this mission cost? No answer.
How long will the deployment last? What are the rules of engagement? What is our exit strategy? No answer.These are not hypothetical questions. Only just last year was Canada’s mission in Afghanistan was finally brought to an end. It was the longest military action in Canadian history. More than 40,000 Canadian soldiers served there for more than 12 long years — 160 killed, more than 1,000 wounded and thousands more suffering from PTSD. Like Iraq, that mission began with only a handful of special forces.
Twenty-seven days ago, Conservatives insisted Canada was undertaking a one-month, non-combat mission in Iraq. But now that Canadian troops are committed, Conservatives are telling us the mission will be expanded to include airstrikes, refueling capabilities and aerial surveillance — from mission creep to mission leap.
The United States has been embroiled in this conflict for more than ten years with no end in sight. And by this, I mean not just the war in Iraq, but the war against Islamic State itself.
While the name “IS” may be new to most Canadians, the group was first formed in 2004, in the wake of the American and British invasion of Iraq. IS has since rebranded itself from “al-Qaeda in Iraq” to the “Mujahideen Shura Council” to “the Islamic State” — and now “the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (Syria).” But these are the very same insurgents U.S. forces have been battling for more than a decade.
Mr. Harper’s own Foreign Affairs minister, in a moment of uncharacteristic candor, acknowledged that there are “no quick fixes” in Iraq. He called the fight against IS, and groups like it, the struggle of a “generation.” That may well be an understatement.
In one of his few real answers about this mission, Mr. Harper has said his proposed military mission in Iraq would end when IS no longer has the capability to launch attacks in Iraq, Syria or abroad. That’s an objective the U.S. has been trying to achieve since the invasion of 2003.
Mr. Harper insists that this mission in Iraq will not be allowed to become a “quagmire,” but isn’t that precisely what our American allies have been facing in Iraq for the last ten years? Will Canada be stuck a decade from now, mired in a war we wisely avoid entering a decade ago? Do we have a plan for the war, and for the thousands or tens of thousands of veterans we’ll have to take care of in years after?
In Congo, through 15 years of bloodshed and 5 million dead, Stephen Harper has never suggested that military action was the solution there. In Darfur, with hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced, Conservatives have never proposed sending in troops.
Military action is far from the only tool at Canada’s disposal, and there’s simply no evidence that joining a decade-old American war in Iraq is the best way we can contribute here.
IS has thrived in Iraq and Syria precisely because those countries lack stable, well-functioning governments capable of maintaining peace and security within their own borders. Canada’s first contribution should be to use every diplomatic, humanitarian and financial resource at our disposal to respond to the overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground and strengthen political institutions in both those countries. With the hard-earned credibility Canada earned by rejecting the initial ill-advised invasion of Iraq, we are well-positioned to take that initiative.
The struggle against IS won’t end with another Western military action in Iraq and Syria. It will end by helping the people of Iraq and Syria build the political, institutional, and security capabilities they need to oppose ISIS themselves.
Canada, for its part, should not rush to war.
Another day, another ISIS beheading, another day of US bombs, and where it will end, and if it will ever end, nobody knows.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/world/meast/isis-alan-henning-beheading/in...
Trudeau's position getting roasted on Power and Politics
Kady O'Malley though sounds like she pimps for the Liberal party.
North Report, is there ever a time where Justin Trudeau isn't doing badly according to you?
Seriously, I'm trying to remember if there's ever been a poll, a by-election, a position, an issue, that has ever been a positive for Trudeau and not a negative.
I congratulate Justin Trudeau on making a fairly coherent speech, and coming to the right conclusion, to vote against Harper's war. Perhaps coincidentally, the Globe and Mail has today published what they call a debate between John Baird and Tom Mulcair. It's actually just a pair of duelling essays, with no back and forth. Votes and comments are overwhelmingly in favour of Mulcair. I'm going to quote his essay in full, on the theory that Mulcair owns the copyright, and would want it to be widely shared. Compare, if you will, the depth of knowledge and understanding shown in this essay in contrast to the much touted, but almost content free, speech by Trudeau.
Actually, Michael, Mulcair said pretty much the same things as Trudeau did.
And Trudeau's speech has the distinction of drawing on the wisdom of former Prime Minister Jéan Chrétien's decision to keep Canada out of the 2003 Iraq War.
This was one of Chrétien's best decisions, and the Canadian public will be reminded that it was a Liberal Prime Minister that opposed Harper's last Iraq War.
and the Canadian public will be reminded that it was a Liberal Prime Minister that opposed Harper's last Iraq War.
But sent us to Afghanistan.
How to exploit ISIS' biggest fear
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/opinion/shahbandar-pregen-isis-fear/index....
LIVE STREAM FROM CANADA 2020 - JUSTIN TRUDEAU SPEAKING
Wow. Justin Trudeau is ripping Stephen Harper on his evasive behaviour on the Iraq War, particuarly in 2003 when he signed on with George Bush.
Says Harper has refused to lay out a clear and reliable case for the Iraq War.
http://canada2020.ca/canada-2020-live/
This is an impressive speech by Trudeau. He's discussing Bush & Harper's misguided Iraq War rhetoric in 2003.
Would this "impressive speech" be the one whereby Justin attempts to explain this war as an example of penis envy in action?
This was one of Chrétien's best decisions, and the Canadian public will be reminded that it was a Liberal Prime Minister that opposed Harper's last Iraq War.
But not the Liberal party. The party was desperate to join in, but Chretien refused, mostly because they were ousting him from the leader's chair against his will. He paid them back by flexing the PMo's muscle to deny them the war they wanted and to force through his political financing bill, both of which they opposed. Says a lot about the Liberal party, I think, that doing the right thing can pass for a form of revenge.
Man shot dead by Utah police was 'just walking' with replica sword, according to 911 call
Call seems to contradict claims that officers involved in Darrien Hunt’s shooting were acting on report of ‘suspicious individual’
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/03/darrien-hunt-walking-repl...
Would this "impressive speech" be the one whereby Justin attempts to explain this war as an example of penis envy in action?LIVE STREAM FROM CANADA 2020 - JUSTIN TRUDEAU SPEAKING
Wow. Justin Trudeau is ripping Stephen Harper on his evasive behaviour on the Iraq War, particuarly in 2003 when he signed on with George Bush.
Says Harper has refused to lay out a clear and reliable case for the Iraq War.
http://canada2020.ca/canada-2020-live/
This is an impressive speech by Trudeau. He's discussing Bush & Harper's misguided Iraq War rhetoric in 2003.
Nope. Because that wasn't in the speech. That was a minor quip in a Q&A session that took place afterwards.
minor?
This was one of Chrétien's best decisions, and the Canadian public will be reminded that it was a Liberal Prime Minister that opposed Harper's last Iraq War.
But not the Liberal party. The party was desperate to join in, but Chretien refused, mostly because they were ousting him from the leader's chair against his will. He paid them back by flexing the PMo's muscle to deny them the war they wanted and to force through his political financing bill, both of which they opposed. Says a lot about the Liberal party, I think, that doing the right thing can pass for a form of revenge.
Jacob, you're not exactly favourably disposed to comment on the Liberals. I think we'll leave the interpretation to the Liberal 2003 decision on Iraq to those journalists and historians who can be a little more non-partisan.
Sure there were some in the centre-right section of the party, but you can't speak for 'the party' as a whole. The party was 170+ MP's! There were many who were on side with Chrétien, particularly those from Québec, Toronto and the other more left-of-centre areas.
All parties have divisions within them. Because the NDP has never formed government, it's never been in a situation where it has to make a decision like that. The NDP has never had a caucus anywhere near as large as the one Jean Chretien had. So we're talking about very different situations here.
In any event, it speaks well of Justin Trudeau that he is willing to be guided by the wisdom of an elder statesman of his party, and we should be glad that both the main opposition parties have said NO to Harper on this.
respectfully sugget babblers, Socialsts progressives,whomevesrn,to provide support, criticial suport, if need be, but support to Thomas Mulcair and this statement .
we back Jack
No attack
on Iraw
or Syria
Would this "impressive speech" be the one whereby Justin attempts to explain this war as an example of penis envy in action?LIVE STREAM FROM CANADA 2020 - JUSTIN TRUDEAU SPEAKING
Wow. Justin Trudeau is ripping Stephen Harper on his evasive behaviour on the Iraq War, particuarly in 2003 when he signed on with George Bush.
Says Harper has refused to lay out a clear and reliable case for the Iraq War.
http://canada2020.ca/canada-2020-live/
This is an impressive speech by Trudeau. He's discussing Bush & Harper's misguided Iraq War rhetoric in 2003.
Nope. Because that wasn't in the speech. That was a minor quip in a Q&A session that took place afterwards.
respectfully sugget babblers, Socialsts progressives,whomevesrn,to provide support, criticial suport, if need be, but support to Thomas Mulcair and this statement .
we back Jack
No attack
on Iraw
or Syria
Ohh come on, Jack was a warmonger just like the rest of them. He just preferred his spin on the conflicts.
Ohh come on, Jack was a warmonger just like the rest of them. He just preferred his spin on the conflicts.
Unfortunately, that's true. He reversed the NDP stand against NATO. He took years before he could say "Bring our troops home" - which he was forced to say by the September 2006 convention. Even then, for a couple more years, he bought into the Dawn Black egregious spin on the convention decision, by saying "withdraw our combat troops from the south of Afghanistan". It was actually Olivia Chow that was the first caucus member, to the best of my knowledge, who called in the House for withdrawal, pure and simple.
When looking for anti-imperialist role models among NDP leaders, one tends to come up dry.
Irrespective of that - I agree that we should promote and support any hint of opposition to aggressive war in these difficult days. That includes supporting Mulcair's stand, without getting all partisan about "I hate the Liberals" or "Justin is wonderful, stop beating on him", and the rest of the stuff that we need to endure in these threads.
Let's judge people by the stands they take - not stands by the people who take them. For a change. Cool?
Unfortunately, that's true.
Of course it is the truth.
Unfortunately, that's true.
Of course it is the truth.
And yes, of course, that's true.
[Can we stop agreeing now? Your turn.]
ISIS Mission: What Canada's Political Leaders Said
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-mission-what-canada-s-political-lea...
"Harper said Canada will join the US and its allied partners for a period of up to six months in targeting airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (also known by the acronyms ISIS and ISIL). He said Canada will also extend the deployment of up to 69 Canadian troops in a non-combat role to advise security forces in Iraq.
The government's motion is slated for debate in the House on Monday before it is put to the vote."
Canada To Escalate its Role in Mideast War 'Against ISIS' - by Keith Jones
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/10/04/cana-o04.html
"While Canada's government and those of other western powers are highlighting the coalition's anti-isis mandate, making convenient use of its sectarian atrocities to overcome popular opposition to counter western military intervention in the Middle East; in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region the coalition's member governments are making no secret of the fact that the war's real objective is Assad's overthrow.
Needless to say, Harper avoided any mention of how ISIS is itself a direct product of the monstrous crimes carried out by US imperialism - crimes that have been aided and abetted by Canada.
The Liberal-NDP opposition to 'Harper's Mideast war' is a cynical maneuver motivated by the approach of the 2015 federal election and concerns that Canada's prolonged involvement in a bloody imperialist war in the Middle East could give rise to social opposition outside establishment channels..."
Obama's Extremism Spares No One - by Henry Bentham
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/10/03/380914/obamas-extremism-spares-...
"What this shows is an apparent need to blow someone up, but confusion as to who the target should be.
Any objective analysis of the conduct of the US and the ISIL group would reveal they are equally immoral, equally extremist, and equally ignorant of the wishes of the Iraqi and Syrian people..."
Ex-ISIS hostage
"They are right"
Ex-ISIS hostage "They are right"
Merwan Mohammed Hussein told Damon he was “terrified” when ISIS first captured him and his fellow classmates. The militants took the children to a mosque to pray, and held them in a prison-like “primary school” where they would beat, electrocute, and even hang the hostages. They were “entrenched in ISIS’s version of Islam,” Damon said.
Hussein, who told Damon he feared he was going to be killed, said he came to the realization that ISIS doesn’t indiscriminately kill, but rather determines whether the person is an “infidel” beforehand.
The children were also forced to watch ISIS-produced videos of beheadings. Hussein said the videos weren’t meant to “instill fear,” but rather, he said, to tell the “truth” about ISIS, that they “don’t just grab a random person off the street and execute him without evidence — only if they are infidels.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/young-ex-isis-hostage-shocks-cnn-reporter-fam...
I bet that kid is totally mentally stable after going through all that.
All of Justin's quips are minor. But thanks for clarifying which dopey comment was said where. With Justin, it's hard to keep track of his buffoonery.
Justin is not perfect, but he's the only one who can beat Harper. Mulcair sure as heck isn't doing so. He's been stuck in 3rd place for almost 2 years and has had poor results in a series of by-elections. He's not attracting moderate tories to the NDP and they are a distant 3rd in Ontario.
Andrew Coyne predicted recently that the NDP isn't even in the game for 2015. Coyne is an asshole, but he's probably right about that. Conservative/Liberal switchers like him won't vote NDP.
Opposing Harper's Iraq motion was a brave thing for Justin to do because it's much riskier for him than it is for Mulcair. Mulcair isn't in contention to win in 2015, but Justin is. And Justin risks losing moderate Tories back to Harper if they don't agree with the Liberal decision to oppose the Iraq motion. These voters have never been with Mulcair, so he doesn't face the same risk as he doesn't really have a right flank to protect.
Wrong as always. Both parties are aiming to take government in the next election and so both have to vie for the same centrist swing voters. Both take a risk in opposing military actions. Since the NDP also includes many core voters who hate most military engagements but still have to capture swing voters who are generally receptive to them, a strong case could be made that this is much more of a minefield for Mulcair than it is for Justin.
But the NDP is not in contention to win the next election. (We can argue that point of course, but that is what the pollsters & by-election results show). The NDP has never won an election in its history and since it's not attracting centrist voters and is running 3rd in Ontario, the best it can likely finish in 2015 is 2nd. So right now the NDP is not really trying to form government or vie for centrist voters. It is mainly just trying to hold onto what it has.
Btw, saying 'Wrong as always' comes across as very patronizing, particularly since you are often wrong more than I am. If the NDP were winning over centrist voters it would have won some of the by-elections over the past year. Instead, the Liberals have beaten the NDP in all 9 by-elections since Spring 2013. That's because the Liberals are winning the centrist voters.
Oh gosh. I sure didn't mean to patronise you. It's not like you're stupid or anything. You're wrong all the time intentionally because all your posts are manipulative claptrap and you don't actually mean a word you write. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Anyway, history is littered with the bones of people who thought they couldn't be beaten by a seemingly weaker opponent. Seeing as that's the kind of arrogance that has defined the Liberal party for decades, your comment is not unexpected, but it is especially funny coming right on the heels of the last election where the NDP took the Official Opposition and reduced the Liberals to a poor third place. That was also impossible and nobody saw it coming until the last minute, remember? Too bad you and your party didn't learn anything from that. Well, just keep telling yourself that being beaten by the NDP is impossible. It's been such a winning strategy for you guys. There's only a red door and a blue door, right? Canadians loved that one.
This is disappointing.....
Recent polls show a majority of Canadians favour of limited combat role - but not without concerns
The most recent poll numbers, from an Ipsos Reid poll for Global News on Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, found 64 per cent of Canadians were somewhat or strongly supportive of a Canadian participation that included air strikes. The remaining 36 per cent were opposed, but just 16 per cent strongly — compared to 29 per cent who strongly supported a more intense role....
The poll results are not without indications of misgivings. A Nanos Research poll for CTV News found 77 per cent of Canadians agreed that sending soldiers to Iraq could lead Canada into a prolonged conflict. But, while Conservative supporters are more likely to be in favour of a robust role for Canada in the fight against ISIS, the polls suggest that Liberal and NDP voters are also broadly supportive.
In the surveys by Abacus Data and Angus Reid Global, fewer Liberals and New Democrats opposed a combat role of some kind than those who were in favour of one. It suggests both Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair could find themselves offside with party supporters in their opposition to the mission.
The public has spoken, they want war with ISIS. Will our politicians follow the will of the people?
In the surveys by Abacus Data and Angus Reid Global, fewer Liberals and New Democrats opposed a combat role of some kind than those who were in favour of one. It suggests both Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair could find themselves offside with party supporters in their opposition to the mission.
55% of prospective NDP voters support sending advisors to Iraq, 31% oppose
49% support sending aircraft, 39% oppose.
This is how world wars and genocides are organized:
1. Nonstop propaganda about weird-looking barbarians/aliens/terrorists who are coming to slaughter us in our beds.
2. A few photos/videos to drive the point home.
3. The real terrorists (Obama, Cameron, Harper, etc.) wearing suits and ties, telling us the only way out is to destroy these aliens. And never mind all the previous aliens we needed to destroy (Al Qaeda, Iranian mullahs, Taliban, Assad, Saddam, Gaddafi, Hezbollah, Sudanese genocidaires, Marxist guerrillas, anarchist bombers, whatever). They're actually ok now.
4. Ok, ready? Here are some poll questions: Do you want to be: a) slaughtered and raped in your home; or b) do you prefer some surgical life-saving air strikes, which you won't even notice?
It's very unfortunate that ordinary people can't figure out the world on their own. It's our job as activists to help them. But I see there are people on this discussion board whose loyalty to the Trudeaus and Mulcairs of this world exceeds, by far, their commitment to peace and justice and freedom. So our first job is to destroy this fundamentalist religion that whatever my Leader says is Gospel.
Unionist wrote: I see there are people on this discussion board whose loyalty to the Trudeaus and Mulcairs of this world exceeds, by far, their commitment to peace and justice and freedom.
And I see there are others whose ideological commitment to isolationism is so resolute so long as their own personal peace and justice and freedom is secure. But for others, meh.
I think we have had this exchange before, U, n'est-ce pas?
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.
Recent polls show a majority of Canadians favour of limited combat role - but not without concerns...
surprise to anyone?
when Canadians en masse obediently accept the gospel of their corporate media?
my last foray into that foggy world, listening to the CBC aih interviewing the parties on their position re combat mission v. ISIL, where the host made critical comments of the PC rep because of Canada's willingness to respect international law and to not bomb in Syria without government approval...so here Harper is pretending to obey international law (the supreme crime v. humanity) while the CBC and the NDP is critical!!?? more fascist than the PCers?
Not until activists in Canada take direct aim at the Ministry of Truth, will polls continue to reflect the wishes of our oligarchs
Oh gosh. I sure didn't mean to patronise you. It's not like you're stupid or anything. You're wrong all the time intentionally because all your posts are manipulative claptrap and you don't actually mean a word you write. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Anyway, history is littered with the bones of people who thought they couldn't be beaten by a seemingly weaker opponent. Seeing as that's the kind of arrogance that has defined the Liberal party for decades, your comment is not unexpected, but it is especially funny coming right on the heels of the last election where the NDP took the Official Opposition and reduced the Liberals to a poor third place. That was also impossible and nobody saw it coming until the last minute, remember? Too bad you and your party didn't learn anything from that. Well, just keep telling yourself that being beaten by the NDP is impossible. It's been such a winning strategy for you guys. There's only a red door and a blue door, right? Canadians loved that one.
Jacob, I'm tired of your insults. I'm going to ignore you for a while and see if you can engage in a more mature type of discussion, but it doesn't look that way so far. You do nothing but sneer and put down anyone who doesn't agree with your NDP talking points.
Don't tell me my posts are wrong or manipulative or that I don't mean a word I write. You are talking more about yourself than about me. At least what I am saying is backed up by actual numbers, polls, by-election results & commentary. All your posts are just based on your own opinion and that of NDP partisans. The NDP are running a distant 3rd right now. That's not my opinion, that's an actual fact.
The public has spoken, they want war with ISIS. Will our politicians follow the will of the people?
It's too soon to say that the 'public has spoken' or to say that they 'want war with ISIS'. Remember that polls cannot really pick up on the complex issues involved in war and that at this early stage of the conflict, there's no way to know where it will be in 6 months from now, or where public opinion will go.
The public may hate and fear ISIS, but that doesn't mean they want a war with them or that they want Canada involved long-term. There was a lot of support for the war in Iraq initially, but in the end most Canadians were glad at the position Jean Chretien took.
It's very unfortunate that ordinary people can't figure out the world on their own. It's our job as activists to help them. But I see there are people on this discussion board whose loyalty to the Trudeaus and Mulcairs of this world exceeds, by far, their commitment to peace and justice and freedom. So our first job is to destroy this fundamentalist religion that whatever my Leader says is Gospel.
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.
Btw, I would like the Moderators to change the title of this thread. The Liberals are not supporting Harper's Iraq mission.
Interestingly, this afternoon it was the NDP & Mulcair who appeared to be looking to move further right than the Liberals on Harper's Iraq mission. The press has been commenting on it.
[url=https://ricochet.media/en/86/harper-canada-expanded-iraq-war]Why Harper’s wrong to drag Canada into expanded Iraq War[/url]
In recent days, the usual pundit-hawks of Canadian politics have reached a fever pitch in their support of Harper’s plan for Canada to participate in the new US-led bombing of Iraq. Their moral indignation always dutifully laser-focused on wherever the Pentagon is pointing its guns, the pundit-hawks never have to account for the evident disasters left in the wake of the past Canadian military interventions they championed in Afghanistan, Haiti and Libya. They are hit-and-run drivers who never even look in their rearview mirror.
This military historian guy often makes a lot sense.
Terrorism 101 offers lessons in how to respond to ISIS
http://www.straight.com/news/743321/gwynne-dyer-terrorism-101-offers-les...
Last Year Saudi Arabia, Canada's Ally Against ISIS Beheaded More Than 79 People - by Travis Lupick
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/10/05/last-year-saudi-arabia-canad...
Israel Working With Al Qaeda
http://cannonfire.blogspot.ca/2014/10/israel-working-with-al-qaeda.html
"The headline for this post may lead you to think that I'm trafficking in bizarre theories of 9/11. Nope. I'm talking about demonstrable events on the ground right now.
The Nusra Front, one of the main players in the Syrian rebellion, is the Syrian offshoot of Al Qaeda. (To prove the point, simply Google the words 'Nusra' and 'Al Qaeda') Despite their unsavoury origins, an Israeli think tank says that America should support Nusra -- that is, Israel wants us to work with the people who attacked us on 9/11, or at least their latter-day heirs.
Why on earth would Israel partner up with a tentacle of Al Qaeda? Because Israel needs mercs. As Norman Finkelstein has pointed out, Israeli society is very strange -- for all their bellicosity, the Israeli citizenry won't tolerate the loss of many soldiers. Now they have Al-Qaeda-Under-A-New -Name (aka Nusra) to do their dirty work for them..."
Jacob, I'm tired of your insults.
I guess you mean to say that you're tired of my factual statements because they demonstrate the poor quality of your character? Boo hoo. You're breaking my heart.
I'm going to ignore you for a while and see if you can engage in a more mature type of discussion, but it doesn't look that way so far. You do nothing but sneer and put down anyone who doesn't agree with your NDP talking points.
And what are my NDP talking points, exactly? I have to admit I'm drawing a blank. Or is it just anytime I disprove your Liberal talking points you automatically consider it an NDP talking point, because that's the only kind of argument you understand. I think that's called projection, ol' buddy.
The NDP are running a distant 3rd right now. That's not my opinion, that's an actual fact.
Of course it's a fact. Are you living in some alternate universe where I disputed this? Maybe you should come back to the real world, you know, just to see what it looks like. 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.
Bingo!
