Ignatieff calls for increased sanctions on Iran

Fucking ignorant asshole ... I'll hold my nose and vote for the spineless NDP next time, but if it were ever the case of choosing between Ignatieff and Harper I would have to vote for Harper over that two faced hypocritical torture loving apologist for violent imperialism.

Same here. Harper looks almost benevolent in comparsion to Iggy, although both of them are neocon thugs. Iggy sounds like he's being scripted by Cheney.

One thing that's very telling is the praise Iggy has been getting by Jonathan Kay in the National Post.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/12/...

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/26/... [6]

Would it be like really immoral to use waterboarding just one eensy more time?

The notion of voting for Harper strategically to stop Count Ignatieff ought not to be written off just yet.

They are both the same, so one would be only voting strategically for either one, if one wanted in effect to keep what they believe in going.

Youre regressing

If the man wasn't so self-absorbed, he'd be completely vacuous, I'm sure of it. World famous thinker, though.lol.

When he starts slagging Chavez out of nowhere for anti-semitism, despite all evidence of the contrary, you have to wonder if perhaps it IS just Cheney in a well-fitting Iggy suit.

I disagree with that part of your sentence (the last part of you statement sounds right)

Harper's Canada has arguably become the most unquestioningly pro-Israel nation on earth; Iggy has still has some catching up and penance to do for the terrible blunder of suggesting the truth that Israel committed war crimes in Lebanon in 2006, which could have lost him the first leadership bid.

I don't think Israel is going to be a wedge issue in the Jewish community in the next election.

What is particurlarly depressing is now the claim that there's little difference between the Liberals and Tories is truer than ever, and the NDP hasn't been able to capitalize on that.

Iggy as Liberal leader provides the NDP with an excellent opportunity to differentiate themselves as the only centre-left party in Canada.  Unfortunately, that means they have to sustain a bold, principled and coherent foreign policy vision that contrasts sharply with the neocon Conservative/Liberal policies.  So far it looks like the orange team isn't up to that task which is bad news for all of us.

We are being set up by the Establishment.

There is no real difference between the two main political parties.

It is just a game of musical chairs and an illusion of a functioning democracy.

The Establishment will do whatever it takes to ensure a majority government next time around.

It is necessary to form a majority government because martial law will be introduced.

Calm

Did any of you do a close reading of the article? He never uses the word "sanctions," Netenyahu does. He does say its unacceptable for Iran to threaten Israel, but then goes on to say, in two different ways, that a military solution would be a "catastrophe... horrible" for both sides.

I took from it this statement: "I don't want to encourage any sabre-rattling rhetoric, especially not at a moment when the president of the United States is beginning to open the door to discussion."

You are correct, though there is nothing in my post to emend. 

Though I mentioned the Iggy "war crimes" blunder, this interview  gives Iggy a chance to eat shit on his other major Israel blunder, alluding to Palestinian "bantustan"--which he he stresses was way back in 2002:

“I think my choice of words was not of the best, but the point was not to equate Israel to apartheid South Africa but to say, for Israel’s own security, the Palestinian state that will eventually emerge in the West Bank and Gaza must be viable. It’s not for me to say what viability amounts to. It’s not for me to define what the boundaries and frontiers should be. That’s between the two parties. But it ought to be viable.”

As mealy-mouthed as this is, I can't recall any more "radically" positioned recent statement on Palestine by Layton. Correct me if I'm wrong.

We've got two vicious toadies in Ottawa. God help us.

The NDP policy statement on the creation of a Palestinian state is both more ethical and more substantive than the Liberal policy statement. No big surprise there.

Iggy outflanks Harper on the right with this latest statement:

http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/16389_statement-from-li...

The hypocracy of those that want to sanction Iran on the nuclear issue makes a total mockery of our foreighn policy. Why not go after those that have nuclear weapons? Sofar Iran does not seem to have them, so why get so excited about that when there are much bigger fish to fry.  Iran gave sanctuary to millions of Iraqies and Afghans that fled the terror of the occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, of which we are part. Would it not make more sense to stop the human rights abuses caused by these occupations? Sothat those millions can go home.

Even from an 'oil' perspective it make no sense. Climate change will soon make the fossil fuel era a foot note in history.

And Harpo is different, how?

Are you kidding me? Because Iggy is not Prime Minister, we can only go by what he says. Harper is Prime Minister, so we can go by what he has done. The only difference between those two assholes is that Harper has at least kept his mouth shut about what he has done. He lets Jason Kenney do most of the talking, and take most of the blame for him. Look at Harpo's position on Omar Khadr. Look at what he did to Maher Arar (and other Canadian citizens he allowed the U.S. to use extraordinary rendition) to send them to countries where they were tortured. Look at Abousfian Abdelrazik and other Canadian citizens he and the Conservative government left in the lurch when stranded or imprisoned (on baseless grounds) in other countries.

Update

Not to be outdone:

What "little regard for its neighbors" has Iran shown?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090925/wl_canada_afp/irannuclearpoliticsca...

Israel is paranoid of any Middle Eastern country becoming powerful. Israel has many powerful Israeli lobby groups in the U.S.A. that greatly influence America's foreign policy. It is due to Israel/Israeli lobby groups that the U.S. first supported Iraq, then got Iraq and Iran to fight each other, then (the U.S.) to wage war against Iraq since 1990. Israel, like the U.S. has a big war machine. War machines run on oil. Israel has no oil of its own. The Central Asian countries have oil. The proposed pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan could supply Israel and the West with oil via sea shipping (oil tanker).

Now that Iraq is no longer a threat, look at the saber rattling concerning Iran. That oil pipeline in Afghanistan could also conveniently be routed through (U.S. occupied, war torn) Iran and Turkey and then to Israel and the West. The war machines of the U.S. and Israel need to possess secure sources of oil. The U.S. for world hegemeny. Israel for zionist expansion.

Israel is not a signatory to the (Nuclear) non-Proliferation Treaty and has nuclear weapons. Iran is a signatory to the (Nuclear) non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons. Look at how we criticize Iran but are silent - actually worse than that - will brook no criticism of Israel on this subject. Where's the logical and moral consistency in that?

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/25/sources-u-s-was-aware-of-new-ira...

Why elect a busdriver that so concentrates on a pot hole just up ahead, to avoid waking up his passengers, that he fails to see the tonado just fifty feet down the road that can suck us all into hell.

one of which is being kept in power by NDP support

so vote non-confidence and let the two neo-con parties duke it out? Be painted as the party that pulled the blog on the unwanted election? And last thing I want our party to do is abstain - why - it says we aren't willing to stand either way - it's worse than do or not do.

"one of which is being kept in power by NDP support"

Point?

That the NDP is allied with Tories in keeping the Tories in power, I think.

No, voting for EI as a start to trying to get more for Canadians hit by the recession as opposed to backing either of these parties. Personally, I have thought about the abstain part.

what do you think would happen if both the NDP and the Bloc abstained on the liberal confidence motion? We know that the libs would vote for their motion, but wouldn't be interesting if a "few cons voted with the libs" thus triggering an election, or just didn't show up in the house, enough so that the libs confidence motion won majority.

The libs would wear the the trigger and the cons would get what they want.

Anyway, I usually don't traffic in conjecture but this would be fasinating. Who gets to vote first?

This isn't a thread about EI. I surely hope you don't think that some crumbs on the EI table trump any other possible policy concern?

yawn

This whole Iran thing everyone is bleating about is a diversion from holding Israel to account, specifically the Gaza Massacre and the Goldstone Report.  Let me tell you another WMD story children, this time in a country called Iran!

Mr. Ignatieff, what do you have to say on the Goldstone Report? Or the recent war in Gaza? How about expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied lands?  And the crippling siege and embargo on the Palestinians in Gaza?

Let's hear what you have to say about real things, Mr. Ignatieff.

Iggy and Harpo both.