Reverend Blair

He sticks to a single point, thelonius. The fact is that the US has, especially under Bush, shown a pattern of disdain for international law and the international community as a whole. There is plenty of documentation that shows that disdain. This thread is about whether it is unpatriotic to criticise the US, not whether an argument can be made that the US invasion of Iraq was justified or legal. The invasion can be argued both ways, but given the USA's overall record there can be little doubt that they were acting in a criminal manner in order to gain profits for their corporations. Krusty, apparently fancying himself to be some sort of lawyer for these gangsters, is trying to keep things too narrow. The fact is that the majority of the international community did not feel the US was justified. Neither, clearly, did the UN. Given all that's transpired...film of wounded Iraqi soldiers being shot, evidence of torture in Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan, illegal deportations of Canadian citizens to third countries to be tortured, evidence that the US hid at least one prisoner from the IRC, and on and on...it is impossible to see the US invasion of Iraq in any but the worst possible light. Canada should not only be critical of the US, but should push for the ICC to try anybody that the US government will not. That goes all the way up to the Oval Office.

Just me Ghandi hanging out on the libertarian left.

Winnipeg and NDP. Stephen Harper is the biggest threat to Canada that exists right now. He needs to be stopped.

You can't be argued with because you refuse to advance beyond one point, Krusty. All you will consider are some old UN resolutions. You refuse to acknowledge the actions of the Bush Administration leading up to Iraq or the fact that they refused to ask permission because it would not have been given. You asked for some proof though. I assume that you mean that Bush administration has been acting in a manner detrimental to most of the planet, sometimes criminally. Here are some links. http://www.amnesty.org/ http://hrw.org/ http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...ok/geos/uz.html http://www.thememoryhole.org http://www.nisat.org/ http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/small...ms/salwindx.htm http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/index.html http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarm.html http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0303-02.htm http://www.americas.org/News/Features/2003...nistMurders.htm http://www.amnesty.ca/stoptorture/actColombia.htm http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia158.htm http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/T...esThatBind.html http://www.amnesty.org/>Amnesty International http://www.hrw.org/>Human RightsWatch http://www.un.org/>United Nations I can supply more if you'd like.

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/harpervillain.swf

Opting out of NAFTA wouldn't end trade with the US, Stoker. They need us as much as we need them. Opting out of NAFTA would force them to deal with us on equal terms though...something that Mulroney made sure didn't happen with the FTA or NAFTA. Canada badly needs to diversify its trading base. The United States is in serious trouble economically, even if they don't realise it yet. They owe far too much and have an ever-shrinking manufacturing base even as they import huge amounts of their raw materials. Their debt is huge and increasingly foreign owned. Their housing and commercial real estate is over-valued. Their social deficit is an embarrassment in the developed world. Their foreign policy has made them most despised country on the planet. Being tied to the US economically is like strapping gold to your body before going swimming. It makes you feel rich but will drag you down with it.

A few things. Kyoto was meant to be a first step in dealing with a problem that threatens all of us. Global warming is real. Kyoto deals with the countries that made the current mess. That is us, not China or India. Kyoto is to be implemented gradually. That we've wasted so long fighting about it and are now behind in our goals is not a problem with the agreement or the goals, it is a problem with the politicians and those who deny science if that science might cost them a dollar. Reducing CO2 output also reduces smog since many of the sources are the same. Harper tries to evade that little fact, but Harper is owned by the oil boys and they've been lying to us for years. New and developing technologies have historically served as an engine to drive economies while relying on old technologies have caused economies to stagnate. Cleaner energy could be a major aid to turning provinces like Manitoba and Quebec into have provinces instead of have-not provinces. Hydro-electric, wind, and tidal generators are in use in most of the world. The technology, while still developing, is already available. The Liberals have been draging their feet on Kyoto because their corporate backers don't like it. Guess what? Corporations don't like anything but profits.

Anyway...moving past that little outburst from Stoker.... I doubt the NDP will make any inroads in Quebec simply because the BQ are already there, Maple. Their social programs are similar, the ideas are pretty much the same. Quebeckers are used to the BQ. With a leader as strong as Gilles Duceppe is, it only makessense that they would continue to follow him.

I think Ralph is just too arrogant to keep his mouth shut, Maple. He was gloating more than anything. It was way premature and could well cost the Conservatives the election. The Conservatives are getting desperate too. Look at this child porn thing. What's that based on? The fact that there is such a thing as artistic merit? Most of the world agrees that Lolita is a work of art, Harper would ban it. How about the fact that the good of the community means being able to discuss things? Harper would make it illegal to publish a book showing how child porn hurts children because such a book, if it were to be in-depth, would contain descriptions of child porn. You can't stop child porn by driving it further underground and refusing to acknowledge it. As with most things, Harper is depending on emotion and hoping that people do not think about the implications of what he is saying. He is simplistic, short sighted, and foolish.

Exactly. it's funny, I get accused of bashing the US all of the time, but when our leaders in Canada do questionable things, I want it investigated. If that investigation leads to real evidence, then I want them prosecuted. Just before New Year's I wrote a thing on Islam Karimov and the Bush administration's connections to him. My feeling, and I'm certainly not alone, is that they are creating the next Saddam Hussein. I got mail accusing me of being anti-American. I didn't get any accusing me of being anti-Uzbek though. Funny how that works.

No evidence at all. The radical religious right likes to use scare tactics. They started with, They'll turn your kids gay," and have moved on to the animal angle. These are the same people who tell us that jerking off will make you go blind and sex other than for procreation is wrong. They are a dangerous bunch, preferring superstition over science and mind control over freedom. They've taken over the Republican party in the US and own the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives here in Canada.

Ah, Alliance...you are the reason why so many conservatives will not support Stephen Harper. I'm sure some people were happy that 9-11 happened. I am not one of them. I sent an e-mail out that day telling people to give blood, not just for the 9-11 victims because I saw those towers fall and knew nobody was walking away, but for those caught in the shit-rain that was sure to follow. I also told them to consider why things had happened. Those on the radical right are still refusing to do that. They have this notion that the US and the rest of the west are somehow blameless. They are wrong.

Ummm...Alliance? Anybody who stands to the left of Stevie Harper is not a communist or a communist sympathizer. Saying that is the equivalent of me referring to you as a Nazi because you support the right.

Except that there's a restaurant there as well, not just a toilet. The gas system and the plumbing for the toilet were needed for that. The million dollar figure for the toilet is untrue...rightwing propaganda. There's also been a fair bit of quibbling as to how much, if at all, the bridge was over budget. We are talking about the foot bridge which was built at the smae time as a bridge for cars. People who oppose the bridge tend to roll the figures all into one. I never voted for Murray for Mayor and won't be voting Liberal in the federal election. Winnipeg spent a lot of time with visionless mayors who, if they built anything at all, provided made them as dull and boring as possible, though. We were becoming a city of big box stores and strip malls. Under Murray the city got better. The bridge is a landmark that joins the Forks with old St. Boniface, the Exchange District is growing. People started being proud of their city again. He could have built another dull, ugly slab of utilitarian concrete. Instead he chose to give us a beautiful piece of architecture. To attack the foot bridge is to tell Winnipeggers that they do not deserve beaty in their city. That may suit Harper and his supporters, but it shows they have no appreciation of anything but money.

The man is looking like a leader. He's smart, articulate, seems to have the best interests of his constituents in mind, and is just pretty damned good at his job. I don't like the whole separtism thing, but this guy is good.

He doesn't kid about things like that, BQ. What he's really saying is that he will not support Harper, always votes, so will vote for somebody who cannot win. His version of spoiling his ballot. Sorry, I'll trust my brother's judgement on that. I know that he is extremely far right. I also know how bright he is and how he thinks. Not that you are or aren't bright, Willy...I have no way of knowing that...but I do know my brother. Actually, given the history of minority governments, it is the Liberals that are likely to form the next government. I'm sorry, perhaps I shouldn't make fun of my brother by referring to his brain as tiny. I was being facetious, just as he was when he called the NDP stuff I send him "communist propaganda." Can you justify Stephen Harper's haircut, Willy? No, nobody can justify that. You are misrepresenting what Layton and the NDp have said, by the way. Perhaps you should have a look at the NDP platform and the history of the NDP. A history they haven't actively worked to destroy and deny, by the way. Noelandmero: Since you "voted with your feet" eight years ago, I have trouble taking you seriously. You disliked Canada enough to move to another country and now are interjecting into a debate about the Canadian election with a view to making us more like the country you moved too? Hey, here's an idea...if you like the US system so much, stay there. From the way your post is worded, it doesn;t sound like you've even been following things very closely. Why try to give us advice now?

We have a mayoral race going on in Winnipeg too, since Glen Murray decided to run nationally. Harper has been going after this really beautiful bridge Murray built. It has a toilet on it and Harper sees that idea as a huge waste. My favourite political comment today was from a co-worker who comes from Austria. "I don't care if Harper doesn't like our bridge, it's the only good thing Murray ever did. Has Harper ever been to Europe? Is he as provincial as George Bush? We need pretty things and we need to go to the toilet sometimes."

If the Conservatives get a minority (unlikely, I think, because Martin gets first shot at the Governor General and I really don't think that Adrienne is a Harper supporter ), we'll be back at the polls in six to nine months. If the Liberals get one and start dressing to the left, then it might (big might there) last as long as two years. That would depend a lot on proportional representation and missile defense. It might also require a token cabinet position or two given to the NDP. Win or lose, I think the Liberals will be looking for a new leader before the next election. Martin has taken an almost sure majority and turned it into a minority at best. Even if he were to pull a rabbit out of his hat and score a majority at this point, I doubt he will be around next time. He'll take an "honourable" retirement and a few board positions and all the faithful will deny he was pushed out. Copps will laugh her hideous laugh though. I, for the first time ever, will laugh with her. So who will replace Martin? I have no idea, but I have a feeling the right wing of the Liberal party is done for a few years. I think Harper could be in trouble too, BTW. A lot of Conservatives thought he was a less than brilliant choice, given his history. Now that expectations have been built up, he will likely be toast if he doesn't win. Being an NDPer my big question is what will happen to Layton. I supported Blaikie for the leadership...he's my MP and I've been extremely impressed with the man (and his daughter who is running against Martin BTW) for fifteen years. Jack Layton has done well, much better than I thought he would, but some people seem to want more now, especially since the debate. Thoughts?

I like to think he was both, noelandmero. I like to think that because it would take both to a) let it happen in the first place and let it become such a big part of the campaign. When he said he could have swept it under the rug he was telling the truth. That he didn't will likely cost him the leadership in short order. Nonje of which should convince anybody to vote for Harper and his Regressive Convertibles, to quote Allan Fotheringham. There is no evidence that Harper is any more honest or forthright than Martin. There is evidence that he's willing to lie though. He's been busy backing away from all sorts of statements since the campaign began. He's lying to us because he's as big a liar as Paul Martin. Just as crooked, just as owned by corporate interests, and just as willing to kneel in front of his friend George Bush. Canada deserves better than either of these two idiots.

The US had no legal right to attack Iraq, Krusty. The UN, various human rights groups, and several think tanks that employ lawyers familiar with international law have said so. Bush's lawyers, who seem to specialise in skirting the law much like the lawyers employed by career criminals the world over, say otherwise. I can, and will, provide my gazillion links if you want, but I doubt you'd read them and you most likely wouldn't agree even if you did. I have read many of the links trying to support your position and I certainly will not agree with them. Ramsey Clark actually formed and held a tribunal trying George Sr. and much of his cabinet in absentia, Caesar. Thee was found guilty. I have a feeling you've seen that report though. If not, let me know and I'll dig it up. There is a very dark side to US foreign policy, especially under Republican regimes. Nixon and Kissinger, Reagan and Bush, Bush and Quail, and now Bush and Cheney have all committed what can really only be described as crimes against humanity. When Pinochet got busted the first person to hear the news was Kissinger's lawyer. They know how guilty they are too. These things do not happen without the knowledge of the perpertrators. That's why Bush has refused to sign on to the ICC and whythey've threatened military action against The Hague should any American be put on trial there. This thread is supposed to be about whether we (and our government) should be able to criticise the US though. If we cannot criticise them when they carry out illegal and immoral acts, then there is something wrong with the international community and our relationship with the US.

You have to understand that I was sleepy this morning, Maple. He got whipped on Iraq too, by everyone present. His attempts to back away from it, not admit that he was wrong, even while he proposes massive military spending is going to hurt him. My conservative brother sent me an e-mail today: "Blair, After watching those morons last night I'm voting for the Greens. They should be happy they didn't get into that mess. You were right, Harper is scary. I have kids. Quit sending me your communist propaganda." The "communist propaganda" is actually NDP stuff, and he will continue to get it because he's my brother and I know I can make him use that tiny brain of his.. This is a man who still argues for the policies of Brian Mulroney though. He openly rejoiced when the Alliance took over the PCs. He thinks Bush is doing a decent job (except for Iraq). He's voted Conservative, Reform, or Alliance ever since he could. That shows you how well the debates went for Harper.

Ummm....how can you blame the NDP for your personal (and I think misguided) choice to move south? They've never been in power in Canada. More than that, what's wrong with us just being Canada. Why are you saying we have to make a choice between being like the US or being like Sweden? The truth is that most Canadians do not have a "practice." Most Canadians have jobs and have seen those jobs disappear under the same sort of policies that Harper is presently proposing. The people who have jobs that haven't disappeared have seen their real wage be eroded, the social services that are supposed to help them disappear, and the environment they must live and work in become slowly more poisonous. Harper is offering more of the same at an ever-increasing rate.

Look for a slim minority (I think the Liberals, but it's too close to call) with the NDP pushing hard for proportional representation. If the Conservatives form a minority government, look for the Bloq to try to bring them down over social issues. That could translate into Harper not being able to introduce a budget because of his anti-social platform.

When Harper was making his cloisng statement, especially at the beginning of it, he sounded to me like a man getting ready to put his fist through a wall. I think he realised that didn't do well. He wasn't pounded on as hard as Martin, but came off looking more defensive. Daycare hurt him, so his non-stand on gay rights and abortion.

As a strong NDP supporter, a westerner, and a strong believer in a unified Canada I have to say....Gilles Duceppe won the debate. He kicked ass. He was strong without being over-bearing. He made his points. He asked questions the others could not answer. He answered the questions asked of him. On a purely debate-based competition, Gilles won. I wish our other political leaders were that competent. Would I buy a used car from Gilles? No, he'd talk me into a new car. I wouldn't like the idea, but I'd know he had a point. On a political basis: Martin had nothing to lose...All the points made against him tonight had already been made and won't hurt him anymore. We knew he was crooked years ago. We knew he slashed programs years ago. We knew he was pro-business, pro-US years ago. The research hacks for the NDP and Conservatives should be whipped. Would I buy a used car from Martin? Not for more than $1000. Harper had everything to lose...He did okay in the debate, but the nagging questions about him and his secret agenda will continue to fester. He is still scary to those of us he had to win over completely. Those on the fence that he had to pull over he very likely pushed away. Would I buy a used car from Harper? Maybe for spare parts, but certainly not for more than value at the crusher. Jack Layton....Showed why I wanted Bill Blaikie for leader of my party tonight. Jack did okay. If I was listening on radio or reading it in the paper I'd be saying he did well. He lacked the presence, stuck too much to the "positive" message, and looked like a missionary. Would I buy a used car from him? Yes, if it came with a warranty. A really good warranty. Guess we're back to Bill Blaikie there...Jack Layton's Mr. Goodwrench.