normanchateau

There are also shades of Vietnam where the US found it necessary to sacrifice thousands and thousands of lives to protect the "good " Vietnamese from the "bad" Vietnamese. And of course the US pointed out that they were only in Vietnam because the "good" Vietnamese asked for help. Now we're protecting the "good" Afghans from the "bad" Afghans. Odd that the "good" guys this time include drug dealers, warlords, criminals, human rights violators, corrupt officials and fundamentalist mullahs declaring death to Christian converts. Once Canadians become better informed of the type of government that they're propping up in Afghanistan, I expect support for the mission will plummet.

As around the same number only "somewhat" oppose the mission. So with the proper information on Afghanistan then the actaul number supporting the mission would be around 70%. Once again it's unfortunate that the left wing is trying to undermine the good work our Canadian soldiers are doing overseas. Here are the actual numbers: somewhat support 23% strongly support 21% strongly oppose 37% somewhat oppose 17% As I said before, a majority of Canadians no longer support the mission and even among those who still support the mission, a majority of those do NOT support it strongly. Assuming that the next Prime Minister of Canada is not Ignatieff but Dion, Kennedy or Rae, I anticipate that the wishes of the majority will prevail. It's a common feature of democracies.

So suddenly China needs us more than we need them. Do you seriously believe that this is why Harper is attempting to play hardball with China? In any event, Afghanistan needs us more than we need them but I've not heard Harper state that he cares about their severe human rights violations? Even China does not have laws declaring the death sentence for Muslims who convert to Christianity. Or jail sentences for blasphemy. Or jail sentences and potential death sentences for homosexual activities. China decriminalized homosexual behavior in 1993 but in 2004, Afghanistan imprisoned an American advisor in Afghanistan for homosexual behavior. Once again, what an extraordinary hypocrite Harper has turned out to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_Afghanistan

Your guess is correct. Gordon Campbell was quoted in this morning's Vancouver Sun as planning to carry on his trade mission to China as though Harper had said nothing. David Emerson, the BC MP and Con cabinet minister most in favour of expanding trade with China, stated that Harper's position was only a "slight" change from that of the former Liberal government. Poor Emerson...stepping on eggshells. Who'd have thought that Harper would have pulled the rug out from under Emerson, of all people?

The multiparty system in Canada tends to make such events possible. Look at how the unpopular so-con Harper got elected even though well over 60% of Canadians voted for parties to the left of CPC.

Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada co-CEO Paul Evans called Harper's approach to Chinese relations radically different from his predecessors and unlike anything attempted by other Western governments. ''This is a break, a decisive break, with the way the relationship has been managed for the last 36 years under six other prime ministers,'' Evans said. ''It's a decisive break in the framing of the relationship and in the tone and the vocabulary.'' http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...4978&k=6988 It will be interesting to see how Harper's position on China plays out in B.C. where the BC government is attempting to expand trade in China. Most of the current CPC seats in BC are there only because the Liberals and NDP split the anti-Harper vote. Harper's anti-business with China attitude will hurt him significantly in BC. He's already in trouble in BC thanks to riding roughshod over the softwood lumber industry, income trusts, broken promises, lawn signs throughout Emerson's huge Vancouver riding demanding his recall (given that the CPC candidate in Emerson's riding received leess than 20% of the vote). What's bizarre is that Harper seems not have a problem with other human rights violators like Islamic Afghanistan, our trading partner Vietnam, etc., etc. Whenever one thinks that Harper can't possibly outdo himself in bizarreness or inconsistency, he proves otherwise.

How do you know most Canadian's agreed with C-250, or gay marriage for that matter. It appears it was more of a 50/50 split, so according to your definition of socon about 50% of Canadian's are social conservatives not fit for leading the country. Opposing C-250 and opposing marriage on the basis of gender do not, taken in isolation, make one a so-con. For example, consider his position on marijuana. 69% of Canadians favour decriminalization of marijuana. So does the Liberal, NDP and BQ party. The Green Party favours outright legalization. Even 50% of Canadian Alliance voters in 2003 indicated that they favoured decriminalization. But Harper opposes it and would rather see teenagers have a permanent criminal record and potential jail term for possession of even a few grams of marijuana. His position on this is very clear. Even Joe Clark and Stockwell Day, have at various times indicated that they could see merit to decriminalization. But not so-con Harper. Suppose this were the 1920's when marijuana was legal and alcohol was illegal. What do you suppose would have been Harper's position then? Make alcohol legal? I don't think so. He's a so-con and accordingly his decisions on such issues are more likely to reflect the status quo than societal change.

So then Canada would be one of the first nation's to have the proud honour of retreating from Afghanistan??? Depends on how you define "retreating". Most NATO nations have already retreated from any obligation to put their forces into Afghanistan. Only a small number of NATO countries even have troops in Afghanistan. And those who are in Afghanistan are fighting a losing battle to prop up a corrupt government with legislation which cannot be "contrary to the laws of Islam." Of 249 members of the lower house of congress in Afghanistan, there are at least 17 known drug traffickers, 40 regional warlords, 24 members of criminal gangs, and 19 men facing allegations of war crimes or human rights abuses. Retreating from fighting a battle to defend a corrupt, Islamic theocracy riddled with narcotics dealers controlling 92% of the world's opium trade would not be dishonourable.

"Meanwhile the traffickers are waging a political war of their own—and winning. Diplomats and well-informed Afghans believe that up to a quarter of the new Parliament's 249 elected members are linked to narcotics production and trafficking. One especially controversial figure is Arif Noorzai, who has won the post of deputy speaker of Parliament. (He denies any wrongdoing.) In a study for the independent Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, Afghan expert Andrew Wilder concludes that at least 17 newly elected M.P.s are drug traffickers themselves, 24 others are connected to criminal gangs, 40 are commanders of armed groups and 19 face serious allegations of war crimes and human-rights abuses." Source: Newsweek http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663339/site/...splaymode/1098/ "Like Musharraf in Pakistan, Karzai walks a tightrope between domestic politics and American demands for dramatic actions -– such as ending the drug trade -- clearly well beyond his powers. The trade penetrates even the elected Parliament which is full of the usual suspects. Among the 249 members of the Wolesi Jirga (lower house) are at least 17 known drug traffickers in addition to 40 warlords (commanders of armed militias), 24 members of criminal gangs, and 19 men facing serious allegations of war crimes and human rights violations, any or all of whom may be affiliated with the poppy business. For years the Kabul rumor mill has traced the drug trade to the family of the President himelf." Source: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11296

Given the extent of trade between China and BC, I anticipate this will really hurt Harper in BC. I wonder how Emerson views this. Emerson has always been gung ho on improving relations with China. I expect he'll be silent.

You're welcome.

Are you telling me you've never said something in response to an unfair comment towards yourself? EVER?! That's pretty impressive. Personally, I could care less what politicans say to each other, it's the nature of the game. I never claimed this described me nor would I ever contemplate a diplomatic or political career (nor would anyone vote for me). But I expect better from a cabinet minister. And I think you meant "Personally, I could NOT care less..."

Gerryhatrick says that the Liberals don't oppose the mission in Afghanistan. In fact, if you look at the Liberal leadership condenders' positions on the subject, you'll notice that Brison and Ignatieff have stated firm support for the mission, and the remainder have taken PaulMartinesque positions where they talk a lot without taking a firm position either way. There's not a single firm commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan from any of the contenders. Brison is irrelevant. Dion, Rae and Kennedy all opposed extending the mission. Assuming one of the three wins the leadership, it remains to be seen how that will translate into withdrawal. But I anticipate it will be an election issue unless Ignatieff wins.

This is rather significant. It's the first poll since December, 2005 in which the Liberals have been ahead of the Conservatives. And the Liberals now have more than double the support of the Conservatives in Quebec. I always did think it odd that Quebecers would vote for a so-con.

Then Mackay is discourteous. Who cares? Those who expect a modicum of tact and diplomacy from Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Here's a novel concept: Why not respond to the post rather than insult the poster?

If it were two guys calling each other names, it'd be a non-issue. Yeah but a guy calling a woman names comes across as particularly discourteous.

The Greens more rational? Hardly. It's a mixed bag of hippies and rejected businessmen. I wonder how many of those who vote Green have even read their 2006 platform. The Greens want to legalize marijuana. The Liberals merely wanted to decriminalize it. The Greens want to lower the voting age to 17. Green policies are quite radical relative to those of the NDP.

Maybe that's why Peter MacKay won't apologize. He knows that even an apology won't cut it with some people so it's best not to apologize at all. We should all adopt this practice of not apologizing when we do wrong or make a mistake. Or maybe people need to grow up and stop acting like school children on the playground. TEACCHERRR!!! TEACCHER!!!! HE CALLED ME A DOG!!!! WAAAA... Please. Get over it already. Are you effectively saying that the Canadian Climate Action Network should not have apologized to Rona Ambrose?

Their constitution states that no legislation, including human rights legislation, can be "contrary to the laws of Islam".

Who presupposes that someone is not fit to be an MP or hold public office if they hold a religious belief? Certainly I don't. Most of our MPs, be they Conservative, Liberal, NDP or BQ, hold religious beliefs. Religious beliefs of a politician only become a concern to me when a politician attempts to impose his or her own personal religious beliefs on ALL Canadians or attempts to deny rights to others based on those beliefs. As far as "attempts to portray Harper as a 'so-con' " are concerned, he is a so-con. The evidence for that extends beyond any religious beliefs, e.g., his desire to impose permanent criminal records on teenagers who possess even a few grams of marijuana.

Maybe that's why Peter MacKay won't apologize. He knows that even an apology won't cut it with some people so it's best not to apologize at all. We should all adopt this practice of not apologizing when we do wrong or make a mistake.

This discussion board is being hijacked by comedians. sigh... ok, you're either disagree with me referring to CPC policies as anti-democratic, dictatorial and top down or you believe that I am in fact endorings the Libs... care to expand? It would be my pleasure to expand. The rules that Shakeyhands was referring to were the rules of the discussion board. There is a rule prohibiting insults, and terms like Fiberals and Fibs are insults. According to the rules and guidelines, these are third-party insults and we're not supposed to use them. Imagine how this discussion board would degenerate if I were regularly to employ derogatory terms for the Conservatives, e.g., Harpercrites, given their reversal in 2006 from their vehement opposition to floor crossing in 2005. In 2005, some CPC MPs were even proposing legislation to prohibit parliamentary floor crossing. Then came Emerson.

Last week the Canadian Climate Action Committee made the mistake, in my opinion, of suggesting that Rona Ambrose was more concerned with her hair than her responsibilities fighting climate change. They were rightly criticized by politicians, academics and others for this ridiculous comment. In this morning's Vancouver Sun, page A13, a story appears stating that David Coon, chairman of the Canadian Climate Action Network, has sent a letter of apology to Ambrose. I don't have a link to the story but here's an excerpt from the letter: "The remarks were thoughtless and insensitive. We are sorry for any offense that was caused." It's really very easy to apologize when you've made a stupid mistake. Too bad Peter MacKay hasn't figured this out. Too bad he's Minister of Foreign Affairs, a job you'd think would require tact and diplomacy.

Not sure what you mean by this. By slamming the anti-democratic, dictatorial, top down policies of the CPC I am not in any way endorsing the Liberals. This discussion board is being hijacked by comedians.