They both unequivocally and uncritically support this sort of terrorism:
United Nations investigators have accused the Israeli army of using an 11-year-old boy as a human shield during its recent Gaza offensive.Their report says troops ordered the boy to walk in front of them for several hours under fire, entering buildings and opening suspect packages.
The UN team responsible for protection of children in war zones says it found "hundreds" of similar violations.
Strange name for a thread.
A more informative thread would be:
"What Harper and Ignatieff don't have in common"
Both stale old line party leaders want to take turns [url=http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/593063][b]selling Canada's environment[/b][/url] to foreign energy companies. No matter what climate scientists say, and no matter the warning signs around the world that neoliberal market ideology and democracy are incompatible, they continue to allow Canada's national energy policy to be dictated to us from corporate board rooms in the USSA.
The both support the war in Iraq.
They both support not being there now.
They both support preemptive strikes.
They both support the War in Afghanistan
They both support leaving in 2011 (but not leaving)
They both support cohersive interogations
---------------------------------------------------
I don't know if Harper supports targeted assasinations
They both support indefinite detention of suspects
That's not a bad start.
Pretty much everything from what I can see other than one seems to prefer blue ties and sweaters and the other likes red ties. Beyond that I can see almost no light between them on policy issues.
Yes they have much in common for sure but the parties have always been pretty much on the same page except when it came to who was going to be in power. Right now its Harper but I guarantee Iggy will say its should be him. What about Suncor do they both like that deal because its frightening that this Oil Company would be the only game in town, with the license TILMA? And it means the black hole of Alberta has just gotten a whole lot bigger as there is no one saying don't destroy the land, don't destroy the environment as Harper's government breaks the rules to make the deal. And its a sad day.
[url=http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/03/12... Lorrie Goldstein doesn't think there's much difference between Harper and Iggy[/url]
In the three months since becoming Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff has made his party virtually indistinguishable from the Conservatives.Granted, he had lots of help before he got the job from Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Indeed, Harper's breathtaking, opportunistic conversion to "liberal" economics in order to fight the recession -- big spending, big deficits -- has left many Reform conservatives wondering what happened to their party.
What's happened is that under Harper and Ignatieff, the Conservatives have gone Liberal and the Liberals have gone Conservative.
Here are some major issues on which Harper and Ignatieff now agree: (1) Big spending and big deficits, as outlined in the federal budget, are the best way out of recession, not big, broad-based tax cuts, marking Harper's capitulation to Ignatieff to stay in power.
(2) The Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition to overthrow the Conservatives was a mistake because it played into the hands of separatists and undermined national unity. This wasn't so much a reversal of Ignatieff's position (he was always cool to the coalition), as it was his official burial of Liberal policy under previous leader, Stephane Dion, who signed the coalition deal.
(3) Both Harper and Ignatieff oppose a carbon tax -- an idea Ignatieff proposed in the 2006 Liberal leadership race, when Dion was against it. After becoming leader, Ignatieff killed the carbon tax as Liberal policy, which Dion had come to support, and which became an anchor on Liberal fortunes in last year's election. Ignatieff has now adopted Harper's position.
Kyoto
(4) Both agree Canada can't meet its targets under the Kyoto accord, but that man-made climate change must be addressed. Here, Harper, who used to describe Kyoto and global warming as little more than socialist hoaxes, has moved towards the Liberals. That is, the Liberal position when they were in power -- pay lip service to the issue, do as little as possible.
(5) Harper and Ignatieff now agree the development of Alberta's oilsands is vital to Canada's economic future, a case of Ignatieff moving the Liberals towards the Conservatives.
(6) Both agree our military mission in Afghanistan should end in 2011, a case where the Liberals, having started the mission and the Conservatives, having expanded it, eventually met half way.
(7) Both agree the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada, which they voted in favour of in 2006.
(8) Both call Israel a trusted ally in the Mideast, a case of Ignatieff moving towards Harper.
The similarities have also been pointed out in the [url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/03/... Post[/url]
As Mr. Ignatieff gets further from Mr. Dion, however, he’s also eroding any defining elements that separate him from Mr. Harper. There’s no discernable difference between the two party leaders on Israel or Afghanistan. Mr. Ignatieff’s views on the oilsands, spelled out in broad terms in a speech last week, could fit comfortably in the Conservative platform. They both want to get along with Barack Obama and convince him that free trade is good, and Canadian oil is essential. Neither has any time for anti-U.S. rhetoric. Mr. Ignatieff has taken plenty of shots at Conservative handling of the economic crisis, but has yet to indicate what he’d do different. Yes, Mr. Harper pledged he’d never run a deficit, but so did Mr. Dion. Yes, he underestimated the scope of the disaster, but so did the whole world.
OMFG. The National Post is promoting Steve Janke (foaming-at-the-mouth in the great white north).
We really are just one degree of separation from full-blown fascism at this point, aren't we?
