waldo

so – you state that Harper firewall would have protected you from alienation and abuse. Interesting, although perhaps you could elaborate on how the opting out from the Canada Pension Plan, the collecting of personal income tax, the creation of a provincial police force and the assuming of health-care policy… how any of that Harper firewall verbosity, can be realistically substantiated as a response to perceived abuse – or alienation (to whatever). which leaves us the Harper firewall tax-and-transfer nugget – you know, improving the equalization in Alberta’s favour. Hey now – wait a minute – how can you rail against Danny Williams for calling for the same thing that you so unabashedly accept as Alberta “protection”. notwithstanding your brazen double-standard, my personal sensitivities are not shaken by the stoopid label – I will attribute your lapse in decorum to your perceived slight and hyper-sensitivity, which I trust, is not an all encompassing Alberta trait.

do you feel your firewall champion has been helping your so-called alienation... your so-called abuse? How's that workin out for ya?

no, no, no... self-serving provincial gain balanced against federal interests

hmmm... do ya think he got a hold of Harper's firewall letter? Harper Firewall Letter

not clear that his support was based on R2P or that he accepts R2P as a legitimization for the Iraq invasion: "Ignatieff said that the R2P doctrine was never invoked to justify the Iraq War in 2003. Instead, the invasion was justified on grounds that Saddam Hussein possed weapons of mass destruction, later proven to be untrue. Ignatieff said he supported the Iraq Invasion because of Hussein’s gross abuse of the UN Oil-for-Food program and history of genocide. “The parable [of the] lesson,” Ignatieff explained, “is that Iraq was a big mistake.” He highlighted that even if the Bush administration did use R2P to legitimize the invasion of Iraq, it did not justify intervening after the fact. The key idea in R2P is that harm is “happening” or “imminent.” Under these definitions, R2P could never have been used to justify invading Iraq." ? R2P as a basis for the Iraq war/invasion ?

that list of those who initially stood up against the war is quite short. How much longer is the list of those willing to acknowledge a mistake in judgment? Ignatieff eloquently and candidly speaks to his failing. Many haven't... and never will. But you are correct and I wholeheartedly endorse your recognition of Chretien's courage in standing up against Bush and the farcical Coalition of the Willing.

you don't need to accept or acknowledge the Ignatieff/Liberal support - but you should acknowledge your alternate preference for an election. your preference for an election that would negate the severity of the economic time and highlight your displeasure with the Conservative budget spending levels. A preference that would ignore stimulus attempts to presume to come to the aid of the thousands of Canadians that have lost their jobs and those who will soon follow. A preference that would prevent leveraging the most desirable infrastructure construction period... for an election that most analysts suggest would only result in a returned minority (for either party). Yes, you should acknowledge your alternate preference for an election over any 'immediate' gains for Canadians.

is it that difficult for you to provide the foundation for your disappointment? You know - something beyond a feeble attempt to demean his credentials and intellect balanced against the shallowness of interpreted tone, questioning manhood and catch phrases? what obvious dishonesty?

pfffft surely we don't need to revisit the lies that predicated the invasion - the lies that pulled millions of Americans into initially accepting the invasion - the same lies that provided the rationale for many of the world's key profile politicians and leading analysts and media commentators. Eventually the truth came forward. Ignatieff has recanted his initial support many times - this NY Times article says it all: Getting Iraq Wrong oh my - imagine a politician actually admitting mistakes in judgement

self-interest isolationism... is... unbecoming

wag the dog? Are the CONS that cagey/manipulative - say it ain't so! such an overblown trumped up piece of minutia by the "how dare they use my $1.95 tax dollar for a party I don't support" gang - aided and abetted by a lack of investigative journalism (see weak mainstream media)

huh! say what? yes, there certainly were committee level influences at play. Interesting how some quickly (conveniently) forget their own monkey wrench gangs committee 'obstruction handbook' Harper's Committee Obstruction Handbook oh yes - there certainly was dysfunctional Parliament Steve!

it's broader than specific policies and pronouncements - the end of the so-called Conservative era. Definitely, time passed. John Howard - gone the Shrub - just gone Harper - going, soon to be gone

good to know, good to know - they're simply too busy during the perogy parliament period. I trust this will certainly put to rest any further comments concerning Harper gag orders.

I am so torn by your revelation - why, oh why, did the Harper Conservative government cave to these baseless torture allegations? Why, oh why, did Stockwell Day not stop the senseless waste of taxpayer money? Why did Harper sanction the torture of the Canadian taxpayer?

Great – a couple of peacock strutting, chest thumpers came forward. So, you’re troubled with Conscientious Objection (CO) overall, regardless if Canadian or American military personnel are involved. We can now recognize your more complete profiles that stand against religious, moral or ethical positions that might cause individuals to seek CO status. We can also more completely recognize your complete lack of compassion as demonstrated by your futile posturing (nee blustering) attempts to beak off about honor, cowardice and intellect.

clearly, the obtuse need help in reading comprehension: the described conscientious objector eligibility criteria - for active Canadian Forces members is => a CF member has a sincerely held objection to participation in: * war or armed conflict in general; or * the bearing and use of arms as a requirement of service in the CF. your premise is that this eligibility criteria can never be met by any CF member - because, as you state, "someone who willingly volunteers to join an armed force would have a hard time convincing a board they are opposed to ALL WAR". You also appear clairvoyant to be able to ascertain that these so-called American Iraq war resisters, as described conscientious objectors, object narrowly and singularly to only the Iraq war. it's most revealing to read the peacock-strutting, chest pumping, bravado championing types throw the coward label towards the American Iraq war resisters. Clearly, they must also be prepared to, in turn, throw the same coward label toward Canadian Forces members who may seek conscientious objector status. Clearly - the confirmations of same await - is that the case - is that your extended position, all you peacock-strutters, you chest pumpers? Are you labeling Canadian Forces members who may seek conscientious objector status - cowards?

is there a double standard you're willing to accept for active Canadian military personnel who seek conscientious objector status? Certainly the Canadian military has provisions for handling personnel in this regard - one's that don't include your dishonor labeling, that don't include your jail time. DAOD 5049-2, Conscientious Objection some of these American war resisters have attempted to seek conscientious objector status in their American military - some have attempted to seek non-combat assignments while staying in the American military. Of course, their requests have been denied.

which presumes there actually is some collective Canadian neurosis about the war in Iraq. Most Canadians are quite comfortable recognizing the events and political leaders that ensured we had nothing to do with Iraq – in a most meaningful debate. There is nothing – nothing – needing a “get over”.

the American Vietnam draft dodgers have contributed significantly to Canadian society over the decades. Will your sensitivities accept that many of those labeled as draft dodgers were, in fact, active American military who left their service. I’m not particularly troubled with your – and others – penchant for labeling the American Iraq war resisters as cowards. As I said, against the context of the most dishonorable Bush Iraq war…

and your point is? Are you suggesting the vote results would be different if binding? A majority of MPs expressed their agreement with the motion. Of course, the CPC sheepishly voted against it. perhaps you could cite to support your dramatization of snickering Liberals – when I read the minutes of the Standing Committee there are 2 motions in play, one from the Hon. Jim Karygiannis (LPC) and one from the Hon. Olivia Chow (NDP). The “conscientious objector” phrase appears within each motion. Eventually a single motion comes forward and is attributed to Ms. Chow, fully supported by all committee members (other than the CPC members, of course). anarchist anti-everythings? How silly.

the conscientious objector term itself is full of nuance – that the Canadian military accommodates it’s active members, should they be so inclined, suggests your misunderstanding and false categorization of the American Iraq war resisters who, most certainly, fit the eligibility criteria that would allow them to be recognized as conscientious objectors – by the Canadian military. DAOD 5049-2, Conscientious Objection the Canadian military does not recognize it’s active members, those seeking conscientious objector status, as “law breakers”, as “oath breakers” (your terms) – and yet you would so label the American Iraq war resisters. in the context of a most dishonorable war, the Iraq war, interesting that you would be so free, so negative, with your honour evaluations of American war resisters. In that context, particularly in that context, it’s quite apparent the American war resisters maintain their personal honor in the face of the travesty that is the Bush Iraq war.

so it's a principled distinction you make - regardless of the number of tours some of these war resisters have made, regardless whether you want to acknowledge their actual histories, as it seems to work to your prejudices to label them all as "bailers". Perhaps you would prefer the term used within the actual Parliamentary motion - conscientious objectors. Better? "[it is recommended that] the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals."

and what kind of a problem does Canada actually have? interesting - are all/any refugee claims problems? I recall an interesting study that followed up on a significant number of Vietnam War draft dodgers in Canada - decades after the fact. Each and every person profiled was a long standing contributing member to Canadian society. Is that that the kind of problem you refer to? Is that the kind of problem Canada has in considering acceptance of Iraq war resisters - that they might actually become Canadians and contribute to society?

the “coward” labeling in this thread seems such a hollow reservation, particularly one emanating from the sanctuary of a discussion forum – notwithstanding keyboard warriors, of course. if one takes the time to actually read some of the first-hand accounts of the varied war resisters, one can quickly appreciate the varied circumstances. One of the more prolific cases is a resister who refused to return for a second Iraq campaign – that he was wounded and received the American Purple Heart medal in his first Iraq campaign should damper some of the fervor for cowardice labeling so readily being thrown about in this thread. Another profile case has a resister attempting to work within the American military system – while on tour in Afghanistan, the resister learns his unit will be deployed to Iraq – the resister has fundamental differences with the lies behind the Iraq war – the resister requests conscientious objector status and is denied – the resister requests non-combatant status and is denied. varying cases being judged collectively by some within this thread – varying cases being judged separately by the Canadian courts, in spite of a Parliamentary vote in favour of a motion to allow U.S. Iraq war resisters to remain in Canada – in spite of the will of a majority of Canadians as evidenced by this recent Angus Reid poll. Clearly, only the minority Conservative government wishes to return the American war resisters… along with a few MLW keyboard warriors.