Or it says he has no control over his Caucus.
Regardless Trudeau is just playing catchup to Mulcair's leadership. nothing wrong with that but you should be honest enough to admit it.
Liberals echo NDP position on Harper's war plan
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/03/liberals-echo-ndp...
That shows that Justin Trudeau has principles. He took the correct position even at the cost of being criticized by blue Liberals in his own party.
What this post shows is the extreme flexibility of Debater's principles. Over the last few months there has been quite a bit of speculation amongst the pundits, whose opinions Debater so much respects, that the Liberals would switch, and vote for this extension. I'm sure Debater had his posts all figured out if that had been the case, and that outcome also would have shown J.T. to have acted on "his principles".
https://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2015/03/24/opposition-blame-gove...
It was apparent in the Commons chamber that the opposition parties were at a disadvantage as far as the ability for supportive observers in the public galleries was concerned. The public galleries directly opposite the opposition, which are normally occupied by Liberal or NDP aides or invitees, were nearly vacant, with only two guests.
The galleries behind and above the opposition, normally occupied by guests of government MPs, with visiting dignitaries also often present, were jammed. A corner gallery reserved for PMO staffers and other Conservative aides was also packed.
“These guys give us an offer for a briefing Wednesday, the story leaks out last night, they got to manage it, they had all their crew over there [in the corner gallery], they didn’t tell us at all until late last night,” Mr. Dewar said. “Those were all staffers from the PMO. Those are the short-pants people.”
...
The combative state of the relations between the government and the opposition parties, particularly the NDP, was also displayed by Conservative MPs who began repeatedly and loudly heckling Mr. Mulcair soon after he began his response to Mr. Harper.
Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask.) at one point admonished his fellow Conservatives, noting that no opposition MPs had interrupted Mr. Harper during his remarks.
“It was visceral,” Liberal MP Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Nfld.) said later.
“What struck me was that while we took very seriously the fact that we want to hear the Prime Minister out and we were basically hanging on every word to find out information about this mission, it was very clear the government was not interested in anything the opposition had to say,” Mr. Byrne said.
“In fact, it became very clear, sitting on the floor of the House, that not agreeing with the government is the equivalent of dissension to the government and dissension to Canada.”
Canada's Plan For Airstrikes Against ISIL In Syria Has Dubious Legal Basis, NDP Charges
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/24/isil-canada-airstrikes-law-syria...
That shows that Justin Trudeau has principles. He took the correct position even at the cost of being criticized by blue Liberals in his own party.
What this post shows is the extreme flexibility of Debater's principles. Over the last few months there has been quite a bit of speculation amongst the pundits, whose opinions Debater so much respects, that the Liberals would switch, and vote for this extension. I'm sure Debater had his posts all figured out if that had been the case, and that outcome also would have shown J.T. to have acted on "his principles".
Rght-wing media pundits may have been speculating about whether the Liberals would change positions, but that's all it ever was.
Justin Trudeau & Gerald Butts made it clear today that Harper has provided no objectives, no timeline and no justification for extending the war into Syria.
And no, I would not have been pleased if the Liberals had gotten sucked into Harper's plan to draw Canada into a long, drawn out war in the Middle East to fund the war chest of the military-industrial complex.
But the bottom line is that this position is braver for Justin Trudeau to take than it is for Mulcair. People expect the NDP to vote against these missions and they don't really have any red tories or blue liberals in their base now anyway.
Debater your comments are really deplorable. Trudeau is not going into combat.
That shows that Justin Trudeau has principles. He took the correct position even at the cost of being criticized by blue Liberals in his own party.
What this post shows is the extreme flexibility of Debater's principles. Over the last few months there has been quite a bit of speculation amongst the pundits, whose opinions Debater so much respects, that the Liberals would switch, and vote for this extension. I'm sure Debater had his posts all figured out if that had been the case, and that outcome also would have shown J.T. to have acted on "his principles".
Rght-wing media pundits may have been speculating about whether the Liberals would change positions, but that's all it ever was.
Justin Trudeau & Gerald Butts made it clear today that Harper has provided no objectives, no timeline and no justification for extending the war into Syria.
And no, I would not have been pleased if the Liberals had gotten sucked into Harper's plan to draw Canada into a long, drawn out war in the Middle East to fund the war chest of the military-industrial complex.
But the bottom line is that this position is braver for Justin Trudeau to take than it is for Mulcair. People expect the NDP to vote against these missions and they don't really have any red tories or blue liberals in their base now anyway.
Based on this logic should we conclude that becuase Trudeau's position on C-51 is potentially harmful to his party that we should then call it brave?
Just so we're being clear, support or non-support of Harper's plan doesn't seem to be hinged upon international legality or adherence to conventions we have historically ratified, but upon whether or not Harper's has the practical details worked out so that the opposition can see it in the fine print. If he had set down clear objectives, proposed a timeline, set and end date, etc, then this would suffice to garner support? That is what it sounds like. Where are the questions around violating international law by invading other countries? What are the rules of engagement for Canadian pilots? Will they be dropping bombs in populated centers over the objection of the government of Syria? Does this constitute a declaration of war against Syria? Are we to engage the Syrian Defence Forces should they decide to contest our intrusions into their airspace? Would this engagement be limited to the immediate threat, or are we to pursue government command and control networks in Syria along with the ISIS elements that are already on the table for bombing attention? This is no opposition, this is political theatre of the absurd. The grandstanding of puppets dancing on strings.
Just so we're being clear, support or non-support of Harper's plan doesn't seem to be hinged upon international legality or adherence to conventions we have historically ratified, but upon whether or not Harper's has the practical details worked out so that the opposition can see it in the fine print. If he had set down clear objectives, proposed a timeline, set and end date, etc, then this would suffice to garner support? That is what it sounds like. Where are the questions around violating international law by invading other countries? What are the rules of engagement for Canadian pilots? Will they be dropping bombs in populated centers over the objection of the government of Syria? Does this constitute a declaration of war against Syria? Are we to engage the Syrian Defence Forces should they decide to contest our intrusions into their airspace? Would this engagement be limited to the immediate threat, or are we to pursue government command and control networks in Syria along with the ISIS elements that are already on the table for bombing attention? This is no opposition, this is political theatre of the absurd. The grandstanding of puppets dancing on strings.
I don't get your point re opposition.
Mulcair stated that UN sanction or NATO are minimum conditions for any mission. The Green Party proposes UN saction as a minimum condition. How can you say the Opposition parties are only scrapping about "practical details"?
And even with these minimum conditions the NDP has not said that these should bring automatic approval.
Mulcair stated that UN sanction or NATO are minimum conditions for any mission.
International law is determined by NATO?
'Helping Assad is shameful,' Mulcair says of proposed mission expansion into Syria
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/helping-assad-is-shameful-mulcair-says-of...
Neither the Liberals nor the NDP are opposed in principle to sending Canadian troops on missions of invasion and occupation against sovereign countries. Both supported the "missions" in Afghanistan and Libya for years. Not to mention the bombing of Serbia and many others.
The fact that they are opposing the current military adventures is to be praised. The reasons given for opposing them (such as, "we shouldn't help Assad", or "what's the exit strategy", or "we need U.N. or NATO approval", etc.) are distasteful, and they show the need for absolute vigilance - because they can and will turn on a dime if popular pressure isn't effective in stopping them. To argue that the NDP has "better" reasons than the Liberals - or vice versa - is equally distasteful.
We should praise their position, keep the pressure up, and never for one minute go to sleep. Because one day soon, some of those praising them for their stand will praise them for joining the war effort too. Just look back at some of the ugly comments made on babble during previous military adventures backed by the NDP and Liberals. That's where complete absence of principle leads.
I suspect that Trudeau's and Gerald Butts' (as Debater reminds us in a Freudian slip) position was dictated not by principle but by the calculation that they could not afford to be knuckle under to Harper again so soon after their shameful surrender on C-51.
I suspect that Trudeau's and Gerald Butts' (as Debater reminds us in a Freudian slip) position was dictated not by principle but by the calculation that they could not afford to be knuckle under to Harper again so soon after their shameful surrender on C-51.
It wasn't a Freudian slip - I summarized it that way deliberately. I referred to the party leader & his chief adviser because they are the ones who make the decisions and the ones who then communicate that policy to the public.
And the Liberals haven't surrendered anything on C-51. They have repeatedly criticized the lack of oversight provisions in the bill and promised to add them if they form government. Mulcair's position isn't that much different.
Nicholson doesn't rule out targeting terror groups beyond Syria, Iraq
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/debate-heats-up-over-mission-creep-in-ant...
Mulcair stated that UN sanction or NATO are minimum conditions for any mission.International law is determined by NATO?
He did not define international law. And did not say all Nato missions are okay. What he said was if NATO or the UN are not on board we should categorically remove the mission from consideration.
I, personally, do not support Canada being in NATO. But since we are, I don't have a lot of trouble saying that we won't support unilateral actions by members.
So no -- international law is not determined by NATO. But if the global community through the UN and the alliance we are part of is not involved -- Canada should not be either.
This is the most pro-war government we've ever had in Canada.
I hope some NDPers here now realize how dangerous Harper & his party are. I know some NDPers realize it, so I'm not talking about all of them, but there have been others who have tried to play down how dangerous Harper is.
It's almost as if we have Dick Cheney now in power in Ottawa.
I suspect that Trudeau's and Gerald Butts' (as Debater reminds us in a Freudian slip) position was dictated not by principle but by the calculation that they could not afford to be knuckle under to Harper again so soon after their shameful surrender on C-51.
It wasn't a Freudian slip - I summarized it that way deliberately. I referred to the party leader & his chief adviser because they are the ones who make the decisions and the ones who then communicate that policy to the public.
And the Liberals haven't surrendered anything on C-51. They have repeatedly criticized the lack of oversight provisions in the bill and promised to add them if they form government. Mulcair's position isn't that much different.
Actually it is:
1) The NDP thinks that these issues are enough to vote against the Bill and Trudeau thinks they are not a big deal. That is night and day.
2) The NDP has been specific about other problems with the bill beyond oversight and has stated that these are also deal breakers.
The only thing they have in common is that they would both use the mechanism of amendment to get the bill to where tehy woudl want it. There is no indication that the Liberal version and the NDP amended versions would be similar.
I hope some NDPers here now realize how dangerous Harper & his party are.
This is offensive and trolling coming from a person who defends positions closer to Harper than those of the NDP.
You need to quit the blaming of the NDP for being in the way of your party getting power. The feeling is mutual.
#LPC cannot support extending the Iraq combat mission & expanding into Syria. Here’s why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER6IoG1BkeU&feature=youtu.be
---
Le #PLC s’oppose à ce que la mission de combat en Irak soit prolongée et étendue en Syrie. Voici pourquoi :
I hope some NDPers here now realize how dangerous Harper & his party are.
This is offensive and trolling coming from a person who defends positions closer to Harper than those of the NDP.
You need to quit the blaming of the NDP for being in the way of your party getting power. The feeling is mutual.
No, Sean. You're mistaken and that's not what I was saying.
I was referring to:
1) The fact that we have some NDPers who think there is no difference between the Liberals & Conservatives when clearly there are major differences as we see every day.
2) The fact that we've had NDP supporters on this board who assured us that Harper was finished and would have no chance of getting another Majority, and that we all had nothing to worry about. We are now seeing that was incorrect and that Harper is very much in contention to win again.
Those types of comments were particularly prevalent on some of the threads last fall. It was I at the time who predicted that Harper would probably run on the issue of National Security to get his numbers back up and that it was a mistake to underestimate him.
I'm sorry to see that my prediction about Harper's strategy has come true.
Jason Kenney's 'Crystal Ball' Comment About Syria Ridiculed By Thomas Mulcair
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/25/jason-kenney-crystal-ball-syria-...
I am disappointed in Mulcair, calling Assad a brutal dictator and a war criminal while saying nothing about Israel. *sigh*
I am disappointed in Mulcair, calling Assad a brutal dictator and a war criminal while saying nothing about Israel. *sigh*
Yeah, like that's going to happen!
Mulcair isn't going to be saying anything critical about Israel while he's in Federal office.
Once again in QP today Mulcair shows he is the only match for Harper
Stephen Harper says ISIS unlikely to sue over legality of Syria mission
PM, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair disagree on need to notify UN of plan for air combat over Syria
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-says-isis-unlikely-to-sue...
Mulcair has critized Isreal, so once again your dushonest Debater.
I hope some NDPers here now realize how dangerous Harper & his party are.
This is offensive and trolling coming from a person who defends positions closer to Harper than those of the NDP.
You need to quit the blaming of the NDP for being in the way of your party getting power. The feeling is mutual.
No, Sean. You're mistaken and that's not what I was saying.
I was referring to:
1) The fact that we have some NDPers who think there is no difference between the Liberals & Conservatives when clearly there are major differences as we see every day.
2) The fact that we've had NDP supporters on this board who assured us that Harper was finished and would have no chance of getting another Majority, and that we all had nothing to worry about. We are now seeing that was incorrect and that Harper is very much in contention to win again.
Those types of comments were particularly prevalent on some of the threads last fall. It was I at the time who predicted that Harper would probably run on the issue of National Security to get his numbers back up and that it was a mistake to underestimate him.
I'm sorry to see that my prediction about Harper's strategy has come true.
No-- plenty of people predicted he would go on national security -- this was hardly a secret. I am sure I mentionned this a few times last year and before.
Your comment is condescending as New Democrats as a group tend to have far more difficulty with CPC positions and that is why they have no respect for the Liberal party as it supports those positions.
You may not realize it but your obnoxious posts are only hardening positions against you. Certainly that is how I am reacting and I would guess a few others as well.
Everyone here knows how dangerous Harper is -- if you think we are all so stupid why do you come here to talk AT us?
I am not concerned with what the liberals are doing becasue i will never support them. I am just curious why Thomas Mulcair has to call Assad a war criminal and used that as a reason to not support U.S war in Syria? Why couldnt he just like not support any further military action in Syria? It cheapns his stance,imo.
Disappointingly, not even questions about the death of a Canadian soldier by friendly fire has managed to generate detailed public interest in what is the most complex conflict in our history
One "atta boy" for T.M. Now we need an NDP proposal to begin constuctive talks with our polar neighbours on mutual benefit in how the Artic is to be developed. This in order to protct the fragile environment there and to avoid disputes and if possible to arrange bilateral development activities.
Um, this thread is about ISIS, not ICE-IS.
*
One "atta boy" for T.M. Now we need an NDP proposal to begin constuctive talks with our polar neighbours on mutual benefit in how the Artic is to be developed. This in order to protct the fragile environment and ways of life there and to avoid disputes and if possible to arrange bilateral development activities.
I am not concerned with what the liberals are doing becasue i will never support them. I am just curious why Thomas Mulcair has to call Assad a war criminal and used that as a reason to not support U.S war in Syria? Why couldnt he just like not support any further military action in Syria? It cheapns his stance,imo.
Excellent question. Go back to our discussions in [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-foreign-policy-lining-us]F... 2012[/url], when the NDP was slamming Harper for not withdrawing our ambassador from Syria, and urging Harper to get China and Russia to not use their veto against UN military intervention in Syria.
Like the Liberals, the NDP has no problem with carrying the White Man's Burden to the uncivilized hordes. It's just a question of timing and context.
The imperial drive that produces groups like ISIS is also driving for war with Russia and China. Perhaps Canada could move to diffuse this situatuion somewhatb rather than risk or have thermonuclear war. I didn't think the connection of the two was such a big mental leap, but then again maybe so?
I am disappointed in Mulcair, calling Assad a brutal dictator and a war criminal while saying nothing about Israel. *sigh*
Strangely he also said nothing about the Saudi's or the Egyptians or the Bahrani's. Its the double standard that is the problem. Assad is no more brutal than any of his regional cohort. When he bombs the areas of his country that are held by fundamentalist "freedom fighters" he is a murderous bastard. When he does not bomb those cities the US takes it as proof that the Syrian government cannot control its territory so they get to use airstrikes inside a soverign state. Of course the kicker to the joke on Assad is the millions of dollars and tons of arms that NATO and its regional despots have poured into Syria to destabilize it.
Mulcair has critized Isreal, so once again your dushonest Debater.
Like the time that he publicly raked Libby Davies over the coals ?
No-- plenty of people predicted he would go on national security -- this was hardly a secret. I am sure I mentionned this a few times last year and before.
Your comment is condescending as New Democrats as a group tend to have far more difficulty with CPC positions and that is why they have no respect for the Liberal party as it supports those positions.
You may not realize it but your obnoxious posts are only hardening positions against you. Certainly that is how I am reacting and I would guess a few others as well.
Everyone here knows how dangerous Harper is -- if you think we are all so stupid why do you come here to talk AT us?
If the NDP is so against the CPC, why do some New Democrats like it when the Conservatives overtake the Liberals in the polls? And why do some New Democrats appear to prefer a CPC Government in office than a Liberal one?
And why do you say you have no respect for the Liberals even though they have taken many positions that are more progressive than the Conservatives?
If you are so against the CPC, why are you supporting the Liberals and posting numerous liberal advertisments every night for the past two or three years? Yawn. see you tomorrow.
Pissed off at the NDP and will be calling them about it. Arming anyone in this is stupid, and Assad is no worse than our friends and Nato allies in Turkey. Was a mistep to bring that up in my view, but will likely play to some. Don't like it one bit. Canada has been supporting 'freedom fighter' that later turn into armed dictators, over and over, much like in Syria againt assad. It is partly how ISIL has become so well armed. Though still not a threat to the average canadian.
No-- plenty of people predicted he would go on national security -- this was hardly a secret. I am sure I mentionned this a few times last year and before.
Your comment is condescending as New Democrats as a group tend to have far more difficulty with CPC positions and that is why they have no respect for the Liberal party as it supports those positions.
You may not realize it but your obnoxious posts are only hardening positions against you. Certainly that is how I am reacting and I would guess a few others as well.
Everyone here knows how dangerous Harper is -- if you think we are all so stupid why do you come here to talk AT us?
If the NDP is so against the CPC, why do some New Democrats like it when the Conservatives overtake the Liberals in the polls? And why do some New Democrats appear to prefer a CPC Government in office than a Liberal one?
And why do you say you have no respect for the Liberals even though they have taken many positions that are more progressive than the Conservatives?
Because you missed the point. No one here has ever said that on every menu item the liberals are worse than conservatives, but it sure is the same style of restauruant. So If I want French Cuisine I certainly ain't going to visit to Irish Pub and an English Pub and say where it the fillet minion.
NDP urges end to Canada’s Iraq combat mission
The NDP call for an end to the combat mission, urge more humanitarian aid.
Caliphate Under Pressure: Is Islamic State in Trouble in Iraq?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/reconquest-of-tikrit-in-iraq-s...
Opposing the Obama-led international coalition for whatever reason is one thing. But to actually suggest we have now somehow become allies of Syria’s despicable regime is, well, despicable.
http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/03/isis-i-am-confused-as-usual/
No-- plenty of people predicted he would go on national security -- this was hardly a secret. I am sure I mentionned this a few times last year and before.
Your comment is condescending as New Democrats as a group tend to have far more difficulty with CPC positions and that is why they have no respect for the Liberal party as it supports those positions.
You may not realize it but your obnoxious posts are only hardening positions against you. Certainly that is how I am reacting and I would guess a few others as well.
Everyone here knows how dangerous Harper is -- if you think we are all so stupid why do you come here to talk AT us?
If the NDP is so against the CPC, why do some New Democrats like it when the Conservatives overtake the Liberals in the polls? And why do some New Democrats appear to prefer a CPC Government in office than a Liberal one?
And why do you say you have no respect for the Liberals even though they have taken many positions that are more progressive than the Conservatives?
Some people may prefer the wolves who are not dressed as sheep.
But that was not my point and what I said was quite clear.
To say New Democrats either must vote for the Liberals or admit preferring Conservatives is bullshit of the highest grade. You have been going after this theme and the one about the NDP being responsible for the Liberal's failures for weeks -- it is offensive and trolling. All you are doing here is needling people to get a reaction that you can then complain about.
All you are accomplishing is removing any requirement to be respectful or polite to you.
You want to debate fine: debate on issues but badgering people to support your party due to the threat of a party your party all-to-often agrees with is not working. Blaming other parties for Liberal failures does not win you more support -- it makes the Liberal party look sad and pathetic. If that is your aim keep at it. Or call the Liberal propaganda office and they might even tell you to stand down becuase you are not doing them any favours here.
PM's Syrian decision rolled out with arrogance and laziness: Tim Harper
The decision to expand Canada’s military mission to Syria may be sound and popular, but voters deserve more than flimsy good guys vs. bad guys rationale
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/03/26/pms-syrian-decision-rolled...
Pissed off at the NDP and will be calling them about it.
Don't bother. They're tuned to loftier interests.
v http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6940670
Tom mocks Kenney I have no crystal ball comment. No exit plans, no idea how to fix things in the middle east, its just hey lets blow shit up and prey.
Airstrikes in Syria could help Al-Qaeda.
Its official we've fucking turned the Middle East into Thunderdome.
Along with his parliamentary arrogance in the face of reasonable questions by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister seems to want carte blanche to operate anywhere he wants.
Yet more evidence that Harper's Conservatives are moving further and further to the extreme right wing. We are being lied to about our role overseas, which means we have lost democratic control over the military. Instead of providing 'military advice', we are bombing and participating in raids.
Harper himself needs parliamentary oversight.
As well as being lied to about what our military are doing, we are being lied to about who our allies are and who our enemy is. Yesterday's terrorist is today's moderate. Now we are being told that ISIS is a former Baath Party creation.
Troops out!
