Ignatieff Announces Sweeping New Foreign Policy Agenda

[nicky10013]

Why do you want a hangar for new C-17 for the first five years of their operation?

Do you have any idea about modern aircraft? I do not think so.

Why would you? Perhaps the snow and ice is a good anwer. If it isn't, educate me.

[nicky10013]

Althought you didn't bother to attribute this stuff I'll answer it regardless.

It's from the same document I posted. Not really that hard of a stretch.

So... who did we lose ground to? And in what manner? According to what evidence? By whose opinion?

The Chinese, the Indians, the Europeans, the Americans, the Mexicans. Take your pick. We've done something to piss off all of them. Hell, even the Australians. How many speeches has Harper plagiarized from their PM.

That's actually kind of hilarious given the foreign policy of this country during the entire Liberal term in office was conducted exclusively for the benefit of Liberal ethnic politicking. To this end, we either meekly went along with one-sided anti-Israeli resolutions to please Muslim voters, or abstained on the ones which even the Liberals couldn't find an excuse to support. We refused to go along with the rest of the world in declaring the Tamil Tigers a terrorist group purely so Liberals in Toronto could get votes from the Sri Lankan community there. We walked a tightrope on our relations with India in order to try to please both Hindus and Sikhs, and refused to condemn Chinese human rights violations in order to please Chinese. We flirted with anti-Americanism - or crossed into it - whenever the Liberals thought they could get Lefty votes from it and let both our foreign aid and immigration systems become hostage to local ethnic politicking.

And the Liberals complain because, it seems, the Tories are "playing politics" by supporting Israel in a craven bid to please the 350,000 Jewish voters instead of bravely opposing them to please the 1 million Muslims - like the Liberals have been doing. How it makes sense, from an ethnic politics perspective is kind of confusing giving the numbers.

In terms of Israeli-Palestinian conflict we should remain neutral. Why support one over the other when they both commit atrocities?

What tightrope did we walk with India? On what issue?

Human rights issues with China? Yet another brain dead response from someone who didn't read the document. Interconnectedness brings human rights. No matter what I say you won't believe, but trade and money bring human rights far quicker than scoldings and trade restrictions. What are we going to do, take them down a peg or two, cut off trade and wait for the coup? Are you a toddler?

So he should have gone, signed a pointless treaty he had no intention of ever doing anything about, and called it a day - like the Liberals did? It gets me how the Liberals have the unmitigated gall to criticize ANYONE on global warming given how they completely betrayed their own promises for Kyoto. In fact, Martin played politics during the previous election by trying to link Harper with Bush on global warming - which went embarrassingly south for him when it turned out that despite their opposition to the whole concept of Kyoto the Americans had still done TWICE as well as Canada had in slowing the growth of emissions.

Whatever the Liberals did in the past is no excuse for our current government attending conferences and negotiating in bad faith to the detriment of the agreement. Was it a bad deal? Sure, it was something but it wasn't great. Could it have been better without the obfuscation from Harper? We'll never know, now will we?

They also have a very real point about Harper waiting for Obama to make a move to figure out where Canada stands. Going to Copenhagen only because Obama went, environmental policy hand copied from the Americans, fiscal policy...where does it end? For all the Conservatives on here saying how Harper is the only leader in this country, well, jesus christ, he sure does follow everyone else around a lot.

, have not only undermined Canada’s credibility,thus squandering our influence in the regi

:lol: :lol:

The gall and deceitfulness, the dishonesty and bald-faced dishonesty of the Liberals!

What dishonesty, nothing in this document is untrue. I suppose this is what they call grasping at straws for the lack of anything better to say.

I seem to recall that Chretien's visits to China involved him spending a lot of his time on his hands and knees, licking Chinese shoes, for which he got a pat on the head and nothing more. His much ballyhooed visit to India was said to have resulted in billions in signed agreements, all of which disappeared within the following months. For all Chretien's jet setting ways there's no evidence his innumerable and expensive trips all over the world accomplished a single, solitary thing for Canada, and certainly did NOTHING to impress the world or "improve our reputation".

Sources?

Clinton showed her amateur side, not to mention her hypocrisy in criticising Canada over not wanting to fund abortion in the same week her President signed a health bill wherin he promised not to spend any federal money on abortion.

Domestic policy/politics is certainly a lot different than foreign, then again you wouldn't understand that

You gotta give them credit for their inventiveness in their bald faced lying weasel ways. Clinton actually was badgering us to stay in our combat role, one which the Conservatives had pulled out of mostly because of the dishonest, dishonorable, contemptible opposition to the war instigated by the Liberals right after they lost the election - even though they were the ones who sent us there.

Still waiting to see where the lies are.

Edited June 15, 2010 by nicky10013

[Topaz]

I rather talk about the soldiers side of the story,my understanding is we only has about 65,000 in the military and about 23,000 of those are reserves. I would think these guys are mentally drain and need time to regroup their minds. Some are on 4-5 times to Afghanistan now. There needs to be more young people joining but that can't going to happen any time soon and if they do join I would think the navy and the air force are the first choices. So the government buys all this new equipment for the miltary, but who is going to use and most importantly, where?

[Smallc]

I rather talk about the soldiers side of the story,my understanding is we only has about 65,000 in the military and about 23,000 of those are reserves.

Then as usual, you understand incorrectly. We have about 67K in the regular forces, and about 23K FTE in the reserves. The goal is to have 70K in the regular forces and 30K FTE in the reserves.

As for your assertion that everyone is joining the airforce and navy, you're wrong. The land forces are actually at their maximum. The navy is short about 1500 sailors.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

.... A lot of the extra money being put into the military isn't being put towards upgrading equipment, but replacing battle damaged and worn out equipment that's been used overseas. The makeup of the armed forces in terms of major equipment is almost identical to that of what it was in 2006 when the Liberals left office.

Nope..the Iltis jeeps were not replaced! LOL!

[Keepitsimple]

What a brain dead response. I posted the link directly to the policy initiative. If all the initiative is about is Afghanistan, well, then, you just didn't read it at all.

Read the entire thing and then come back and tell me the same thing.

It would have helped if you had posted in with the original topic....but I digress. A lot of feel-good stuff in there, I agree. Better late than never for the Liberals to catch up with what's going on in the world. China and India.....being done - check. North America.....we have the best ties with the US since Mulroney....Chretien and Martin kept whacking the US for domestic votes. So that's repaired and moving forward - check. The Arctic - we need to make our own strong stand before we "collaborate" with a "global network" approach....in progress - check. Africa - our position is not to withdraw - it's to stop giving money directly to countries who have no capacity or willingness to help their own people. Using our foreign aid to Africa tax dollars wisely....underway - check.

....and when does a "policy" paper spend so much space criticizing the government instead of putting meat on the bare bones of their "vision".

But at least they've finally put a few words on paper - I'll grant them that. Let's see how much twisting and turning they do when the critics come out.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[YEGmann]

Why would you? Perhaps the snow and ice is a good anwer. If it isn't, educate me.

Hardly I can educate you in this forum. Just do not judge about what you have no knowledge.

Jet aircraft do not need hangars for parking and routine maintenance. They are designed to stay outside for years. Rain, snow and ice is not a problem at all. Hurricane winds and sand can be a challenge. Hangars are required only for so called heavy maintenance, once in several years. By the time our C-17 will require this maintenance a suitable hangar will be built or found.

[Keepitsimple]

What a brain dead response. I posted the link directly to the policy initiative. If all the initiative is about is Afghanistan, well, then, you just didn't read it at all.

Read the entire thing and then come back and tell me the same thing.

In case you didn't agree with my own personal response, Here's some of what John Ivison had to say this morning (my bold):

Michael Ignatieff unwrapped the Liberal party’s foreign policy platform Tuesday — a mix of practical, new ideas aimed at improving Canada’s standing in the world. Unfortunately for Liberals, the practical ideas are not new and the new ideas are not practical.

...........

The new strategy makes a list of commitments, with the typical moral righteousness that always accompanies Liberal party foreign policy proposals.

An incoming Liberal government would immediately enter into negotiations with China and India to deepen economic, knowledge and cultural ties; raise the profile of the U.S.-Canada relationship in America; improve management of the shared border; engage the White House and Congress on carbon pricing; work with Mexico to phase out visa requirements; and, pursue a multilateral agreement on the Arctic.

These are, as Professor Hampson put, it “distinctions without differences” from current government policy. The major point of differentiation seems to be that the Liberals would try so much harder.

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/15/john-ivison-ignatieff-unveils-bumper-sticker-foreign-policy/

Edited June 16, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Army Guy]

If anything, you should be happy. The policy calls for involvement, though in a non-combat role, past 2011.

Training both the army and police involves training and mentoring, which translates into a combat role....the mentoring portion requires actual presence of armed Canadian soldiers in the field with them....

Mr. Ignatieff is also promising to promote the “right to protect” doctrine, which he, as an academic, helped the United Nations develop. And he's vowing to back that up with Canadian soldiers on UN-mandated missions to prevent genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Why the sudden turn around in liberal thinking, I thought and maybe i'm wrong here but was it not the liberals that demanded our presence in Afghan end in 2011 or sooner....i mean Afghan was a UN sanctioned mission was it not...so explain to me how these new proposed missions are any different than our current mission in Afghan...The wording he uses don't seem to suggest anything different...

“When the world must act to stop large-scale slaughter of innocent people, Canada will be there with highly skilled, battle-hardened military capacity, experienced in the complexities of modern conflict,” the document says.

Pretty strong words that suggest that we won't be there handing out candies and blankets..."HIGHLY SKILLED ABD BATTLE HARDENED military capacity, experienced in modern combat" Very strong words from a party that gutted that capacity....I wonder how that is going to rebuild our image on the global stage ...when Afghan has not...

Don't disagree with this. Yet, most of the stuff was purchased used (tanks, helicopters).

Yes we did purchase some used equipment, at fire sale prices, which will be upgraded and brought up to new standards. In the case of the Chinnoks we did purchase used as Smallc pionted out as an interm measure they did however get a contract for new Chinnoks, also new C-130J transport aircraft, New hvy transport trucks, also new counter IED and Mine vehs, addtional RG31 vehs, new UAV's, new small arms upgrades, also have started the contract process on new Armoured patrol vehs, new CCV's, new fighters, and now that the ship building plan is approved over 30 bil in ship contracts....I'm sure i'm missing dozens of projects that have been started or gone to contract...

piont is the Cons have far exceeded any liberal progress in regards to our military....