Jump to content

Sir Bandelot

Member
  • Posts

    4,053
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sir Bandelot

  1. Yeah they probably got a lot of help from the IRI
  2. I think that none of the above is the answer, and what they need is a fresh young face to revive the party's credibility. Any of the old guard represents the past and I think Canadians still hold resentment for the sponsorship scandal. They need someone with charisma. In other words, someone like Stephen Harper. But I don't think it should be Justin Trudeau because he is too new and needs to prove himself more, because people would see that as an obvious gimmick ala Sarah Palin. In other words, someone younger who has a bit of a track record and enough personality to inspire people. Yet there isn't anyone who comes to mind. These things have to be planned strategically years in advance but the old guard has been too protective of their turf in the Liberal party, have not been thinking enough about the future and should have been grooming some new people to help them rise in the ranks. Especially as Harper rose to power, they should have known this. I think it will be hard times for the Liberal party for years to come, possibly much worse than this now and maybe they need to go the way of the dinosaur, or PC's
  3. I watched some of the debate during commercials of the Montreal hockey game, and during intermissions. What I saw was McCain opening with "Americans are angry, I am angry" and I thought, he's starting out by trying to inflame the public. During the debate his answers were not bad, but whenever he tried to attack Obama personally, brought up terror links etc. I felt he was making mistakes. Obama constantly took the moral high ground, even saying at times that he agrees with John McCain on some of the issues, showing that he is not entrenched in the "Leftist vs. Rightist" ideology but actually a thinker who looks at issues from a larger social perspective. McCain cannot compete on this level, so he tries to bring it down to mudslinging, and fails. I think there's ambition, and then theres actual ability. Compared to Obama, McCain is simply not the right man for the job, by his own nature.
  4. No one in cancer care would lose their jobs! But the fat cats. we can do without. They were not the ones to pay for it, we had to pay, so they could continue. Thats why he was a traitor. And his party-hopping, indicates to me that his interests are only self serving, his politics changes by which way the wind blows. Not to be trusted.
  5. No it wasn't just the health care workers, but thats what I was and that had the most negative impact on the rest of society. New Liberal leader? There must be some better candidates than the current gang we have to choose from. They need somebody new, not these tired old politicians with too many skeletons in the closet. How about that guy from Newfoundland, maybe he might be interested. Although he's currently a PC but he doesn't seem to like Harper much. Hmm, would make for a new thread perhaps, who would you pick.
  6. Bob Rae was despised in Ontario after he became premier briefly in the 90's. i was working on health care and still remember his "Social Contract" days, also known as "Rae Days". Health care workers were forced to take 12 unpaid days of leave, and this directly affected critical operations like cancer care. We all felt betrayed by him and I for one would not give him any support after that.
  7. That true but the two are very closely linked. It was the UN who made the decisions that enabled NATO mambers to take their actions. I read some more and found that the initial mission was first called Operation Apollo, started right after Sept. 11: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=490 Operation APOLLO How It Began September 12, 2001: The UN Security Council issued Resolution 1368, condemning the attacks of September 11, offering deepest sympathy to the American people, and reaffirming the right of member nations (expressed in Article 51 of the UN Charter) to individual and collective self-defence. It also urged the world community to suppress terrorism and hold accountable all who aid, support or harbour the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist acts, and stated that the UN was prepared to combat all forms of terrorism. September 20, 2001: Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton authorized more than 100 CF members serving on military exchange programs in the U.S. and other allied nations to participate in operations conducted by their host units in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. September 28, 2001: The UN Security Council issued Resolution 1373, setting out the methods by which member states were to root out terrorists and terrorist organizations, and deprive terrorists of the funds and materials necessary to conduct their operations. October 4, 2001: NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson announced that, in response to the terrorist attacks in the U.S., the North Atlantic Council (NATO's senior advisory body) was invoking Article 5 of the Treaty of Washington, which states that any attack on a NATO nation launched from outside that nation shall be interpreted as an attack on all the NATO nations. October 7, 2001: Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced that Canada would contribute air, land and sea forces to the international force being formed to conduct a campaign against terrorism. So thats why I remember it being intially authorized by UN, and I remember Chretien explaining his decision to participate was based on that. So I'm not too clear on whether it was actually started by Nato or UN. Well, thats the official story anyway... we all know there is always more to it than what the government tell us up front. Basic story seems to be that if Canada wanted to be a "World Player", whatever that means, ($$) we had to send our troops to the war. Edit- I do not believe there ever really was "popular support" in Canada for the war, but if there was, it was from the right-wingers not Lefties. The Left would generally support negotiations or sanctions
  8. Last night, for the first time in many years, I also chose not to vote. Let me explain my reasons. Its not because I have no political interest, I always try to stay up on the current issues. I watched both the debates, although I knew already by then that I did not intend to vote. This was a personal choice for me. Quite simply, I did not want to put my name to leaders who I either have no confidence in or do not support. I would not vote for Harper because I disagree with his politics, he's too pro-US and supports the wealthy, the big business and war as an economy. He has no interest in the environment, and his party has ideas to put pressure on the health care system to change it to a more US-style, less universal and less comprehensive. Thats how I look at him and his party, and I would have liked to see them replaced. But Dion and the Liberals aren't really that different in ideology on several of these points. Secondly I have really no confidence in Dion himself as a leader. He failed his party and this country and he should be replaced. In fact he should never have been chosen, in the first place because the man has absolutely no charisma. And charisma is what gets votes. He shot himself in the foot with his carbon tax ideas. Really they could not have picked a worse leader or platform to win. As for Jack Layton or Elizabeth May, they are the wannabees who will say and do anything to get more attention, more seats and they never had a chance. They too are just more of the same. None of them has a truely inspiring vision of Canada for the future. So I will not put my name to this gang of losers. I know that is politically a bad attitude, not to vote but as I say it was my personal choice. At one point I considered going to vote and ruining my ballot on purpose by writing a protest on it, but decided that would just be a waste of time. So I went out for the evening, played ball hockey with some friends and had a nice night. Canadians elected Harper as I expected them to. I accept the outcome, it was almost a certainty. When I heard that many others did not vote also, I suspect its because they had a similar attitude to mine. In other words, they don't want Harper but they really don't want Dion either. I believe if the Liberals had a truly charismatic leader the outcome would have been very different.
  9. I looked it up. Heres a bit to read on it- "Chrétien directed the Crown not to support the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. His reasoning was that the war lacked UN Security Council sanction; while not a member of the Security Council, Canada nevertheless attempted to build a consensus for a resolution authorizing the use of force after a short (two to three month) extension to UN weapon inspections in Iraq. (Critics also noted that, while in opposition, he had also opposed the first US-led Gulf War.) Although criticism from right-wing opposition was vocal, the move proved popular with the Canadian public in general. In December 2003, it emerged that the government had prepared plans for Canada to send as many as 800 Canadian troops to Iraq if the UN Security Council had authorized it; however, a UN request for an increased deployment of Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan removed this option from the table. This led some of Chrétien's anti-war critics on the left to accuse the Prime Minister of never really being fully opposed to the war. Nonetheless, Canada was the first non-member of the US-led coalition to provide significant financial aid to the post-war reconstruction effort, relative to Canada's size. This move allowed Canadian companies to bid on reconstruction contracts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Chretien Maybe its incorrect, I don't know. Its a minor detail. Still, it makes more sense than just saying "the lefties led us to afghanistan". My recollection of these events is that the conservatives were pushing to go into Iraq, follow the US mission there, and also took the mission beyond our obligations in Afghanistan. The Liberals must have voted to support it, or they just didn't show up as they so often have done. Oh well, time for a new Liberal leader? I think so
  10. We went to afghanistan adter 9/11 because of our obligations to the united nations. I think it would have been illegal to not participate at least in some way. That was the first mission. The current mission was implemented under Stephen Harpers government and changed the role for canadian troops from defending major cities, and protecting development of infrasturcture to hunting for Taliban in remote regions. Many other countries in the UN refused to take this mission for whatever reasons, but that is what we are doing now. I think our government said we will never negotiate with the taliban but we will exterminate them, and now, well, we have politicians saying theres no way to win this kind of war, we need to bring the taliban to the table.
  11. I had actually forgetten about the Cadman affair. Good timing that its resurfaced now, just before the election. This is more of a negative for Harper than a boost for Dion. Any leader who breaks the law, no matter which party must be exposed. Harper and CPC are not a transparent party, nor do they have my trust as a Canadian voter.
  12. I think this strategy of inciting anger will not help McCain, because it only inflames some of those who are already in his base. It will not likely bring swing voters to his side, in fact it could have the opposite effect. So its not a useful strategy, it could end up making McCain look bad, and could even be dangerous if it continues. McCain has made a number of errors, and its obvious where this is now going. Some polls are showing Obama will win, and the word "landslide" is beginning to appear in the media. "Beware a drowning man"
  13. I'm not so sure thats right, keep hearing about some kinda pitbull with lipstick
  14. I agree in principle with your attitude. To me its when something is done against someones will, thats a trangression. However we don't know all the facts about this, so either we need to learn more or reserve judgement until we do. I imagine any child no matter who will be upset and miss their mother. So that is a sad thing. But in her country it could be considered to be a great honour. The alternative in some of these places could easily be a life of complete poverty and utter misery. I don't know if this is this case or not. but she will be well taken care of, very likely. The story indicates that she will be returned to her family, probably in about ten years. Its fair to say, that there are far worse situations for many children in the world. Most of the world is not like the one that we know, most of the world lives in constant poverty and disease. In a sense this could be like someone winning the lottery, although the girl would probably not understand that. This is speculation on my part but shows that its important to know more before we condemn certain things we do not understand. Even our own people, our own leaders are guilty of things like this.. I recall a large number of children, hundreds of them recently taken from their families by force, put into detention centres alongside with criminal juvenile delinquents, then caught up in legal beaurocracy before they could be released back to their parents. So we are also not so pure. Not saying that it excuses other injustices, just trying to point out and counter any xenophobia that might be bringing these reactions on.
  15. Fascinating, thanks for explaining that point.
  16. I do not smoke pot but I have read that it is one of the lowest toxicity of the recreational drugs, even considered safer than alcohol or tobbacco. There were studies done in Britain. I think adults should be allowed to do what they want together, provided no one else is harmed. So if two people wants to go behind closed doors and have sex, and there is money exchanged, whats the harm in that. Oppressing seems only to drive it underground where the real criminals have control.
  17. I don't know if its the first one... as I understand it they are called asteroids while in orbit around the sun but when they enter the earths atmosphere they are called meteors. So these happen fairly often. Although, this one was a bigger one
  18. Its easy to blame other people, I guess. But anyone who wants to be leader has to be able to overcome great difficulty, and still rise to the occasion and be the leader. The real problem with the liberal party is very very simple- Stephan Dion. He has no charisma, at least amongst english speaking canadians. I watched the debate in french and he came across much more forcefully, more animated and speaking very quickly. He should stick to speaking french.
  19. Greetings. Sad thing that people are so polarized, many will not see her faults no matter how obvious or how often they are pointed out. And this is true for both "Left" and "Right" camps. So you can never persuade them through any argument. That leaves a small group of swing voters to decide. Let us use our intelligence and make choices based on real issues, not info-tainment. Perhaps it is more a question of ideology, and these are front men and front women who are simply the mouthpieces for their party.
×
×
  • Create New...