Ignatieff needs lesson in statesmanship

[capricorn]

Michael Ignatieff is questioning whether Canada deserves a coveted seat on the United Nations Security Council given the Harper government's record.

Of course, Ignatieff is known for his nuanced policy positions and statements, so to that he added.

"Don't mistake me. I know how important it is for Canada to get a seat on the Security Council but Canadians have to ask a tough question: Has this government earned that place? We're not convinced it has."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/canada-may-not-deserve-un-security-council-seat-thanks-to-harper-ignatieff-103313664.html

He comes out looking short sighted and not at all statesman like. This was a missed opportunity for Ignatieff. Rather than make this an attack against the government, he could have pointed out that if Canada wins a seat at the Security Council, it would be because of past Liberal leaders paving the way. But no, he chose the partisan route on the back of such an important step for this country.

This man is not fit to lead Canada.

[punked]

Listen on international issues which AFFECT Canada you need to put partisanship aside. I have had up to here with the Liberals trying to ruin Canada in order to blame it on the Conservatives, if you aren't ready to work to make Canada Better, Bigger, Stronger then get the get the fuck out the way and let the other 3 parties work to do it.

[M.Dancer]

What a maroon. He would deny Canada a leading place in world diplomacy for a cheap partisan shot.

[waldo]

This was a missed opportunity for Ignatieff. Rather than make this an attack against the government, he could have pointed out that if Canada wins a seat at the Security Council, it would be because of past Liberal leaders paving the way. But no, he chose the partisan route on the back of such an important step for this country.

geezaz! I'm quite sure... very certain... quote me... take it to the bank... all in, all done... you would have railed on about Ignatieff claiming a rationale based upon, as you stated, "past Liberal leaders paving the way". Bloody hell - at least attempt to not be so brazen - hey?

[waldo]

Listen on international issues which AFFECT Canada you need to put partisanship aside. I have had up to here with the Liberals trying to ruin Canada in order to blame it on the Conservatives, if you aren't ready to work to make Canada Better, Bigger, Stronger then get the get the fuck out the way and let the other 3 parties work to do it.

nonsense - Harper Conservative policies have eroded... seriously eroded... the positioning of Canada within the international arena. Pointing it out is most apropos.

[M.Dancer]

nonsense - Harper Conservative policies have eroded... seriously eroded... the positioning of Canada within the international arena. Pointing it out is most apropos.

Says Waldo!

[waldo]

What a maroon. He would deny Canada a leading place in world diplomacy for a cheap partisan shot.

says Dancer! Hey buddy, does your pissant whiny concern over name-calling include your previous posts use of the endearing 'maroon' label?

[capricorn]

I'm quite sure... very certain... quote me... take it to the bank... all in, all done...

Are you saying you're very very very sure?

you would have railed on about Ignatieff claiming a rationale based upon, as you stated, "past Liberal leaders paving the way".

But I didn't. You invent scenarios to make yourself look relevant and to insert your cutesy quips.

- hey?

That should be "eh?". Geez, I'm French Canadian and even I know that.

[scribblet]

What a maroon. He would deny Canada a leading place in world diplomacy for a cheap partisan shot.

Seems so, one would think he could get over his partisanship and welcome this seat.

Considering Canada is earning more respect and attention internationally he's shooting himself in the foot LoL

[punked]

nonsense - Harper Conservative policies have eroded... seriously eroded... the positioning of Canada within the international arena. Pointing it out is most apropos.

Fine then when we don't get a Seat at the UN then say that. Don't say it before, even if it is true. Again if your not leading to a better Canada then get out of the way. He needs to say we earned it, we deserve it, and we will make the UN better if we get it. Not that we shouldn't get it so the Liberals can look good. I have had enough of this.

[waldo]

This was a missed opportunity for Ignatieff. Rather than make this an attack against the government, he could have pointed out that if Canada wins a seat at the Security Council, it would be because of past Liberal leaders paving the way. But no, he chose the partisan route on the back of such an important step for this country.

geezaz! I'm quite sure... very certain... quote me... take it to the bank... all in, all done... you would have railed on about Ignatieff claiming a rationale based upon, as you stated, "past Liberal leaders paving the way". Bloody hell - at least attempt to not be so brazen - hey?

But I didn't. You invent scenarios to make yourself look relevant and to insert your cutesy quips

give it a rest... read your initial quoted statement above and ask yourself what scenario you invented. But what's the biggee here? The 2-year rotational cycle assignments are done on a regional basis... Canada is about due given the period since our last 2-year assignment date - unless Harper has so soured the voting membership given his disastrous forays into international concerns.

[M.Dancer]

says Dancer! Hey buddy, does your pissant whiny concern over name-calling include your previous posts use of the endearing 'maroon' label?

Pissant is exactly how I would describe you if I was amongst polite company.

[nicky10013]

give it a rest... read your initial quoted statement above and ask yourself what scenario you invented. But what's the biggee here? The 2-year rotational cycle assignments are done on a regional basis... Canada is about due given the period since our last 2-year assignment date - unless Harper has so soured the voting membership given his disastrous forays into international concerns.

Yep. Gotta love the National Post. They wrote an article saying a seat on the Security Council would be "a diplomatic coup." A poster on their comment board completely destroyed that assanine notion with one fell swoop.

Years Canada has Held a UN Security Council Seat:

1948 – 1949

1958 – 1959

1967 – 1968

1977 – 1978

1989 – 1990

1999 – 2000

Wow. I surely don't see a pattern. As for Ignatieff saying the Harper government doesn't deserve a security council seat, he's absolutely right. I've gone over this before, but this government has been an absolutely disaster on the international stage.

Edited September 22, 2010 by nicky10013

[Smallc]

Wow. I surely don't see a pattern. As for Ignatieff saying the Harper government doesn't deserve a security council seat, he's absolutely right. I've gone over this before, but this government has been an absolutely disaster on the international stage.

I doubt that most Canadians would agree with you. I currently don't support this government (although Ignatieff again proves that he isn't a good enough leader to vote in), but they've done a marvellous job internationally.

[M.Dancer]

Years Canada has Held a UN Security Council Seat:

1948 – 1949

1958 – 1959

1967 – 1968

1977 – 1978

1989 – 1990

1999 – 2000

Wow. I surely don't see a pattern. As for Ignatieff saying the Harper government doesn't deserve a security council seat, he's absolutely right. I've gone over this before, but this government has been an absolutely disaster on the international stage.

I don't see a pattern there either. 6 terms.

9 years

8 years

9 years

11 years

9 years and if, if we get it again, 10 years

But if you think a patter is needed...here's a few

Brazil: 10 terms

1946 – 1947, 1951 – 1952, 1954 – 1955, 1963 – 1964, 1967 – 1968, 1988 – 1989, 1993 – 1994, 1998 – 1999, 2004 – 2005, 2010 – 2011

Argentina: 8 terms1948 – 1949, 1959 – 1960, 1966 – 1967, 1971 – 1972, 1987 – 1988, 1994 – 1995, 1999 – 2000, 2005 – 2006

Japan: 10 terms

1958 – 1959, 1966 – 1967, 1971 – 1972, 1975 – 1976, 1981 – 1982, 1987 – 1988, 1992 – 1993, 1997 – 1998, 2005 – 2006, 2009 – 2010

So yes, it would be a coup..we would then have more terms than Colombia ...

[nicky10013]

I doubt that most Canadians would agree with you. I currently don't support this government (although Ignatieff again proves that he isn't a good enough leader to vote in), but they've done a marvellous job internationally.

How?

[Smallc]

How?

Haiti, Afghanistan, The theme of maternal and child health, the economic crisis, the bank tax, bringing down trade barriers, . I could probably find more.

[nicky10013]

Haiti, Afghanistan, The theme of maternal and child health, the economic crisis, the bank tax, bringing down trade barriers, . I could probably find more.

I'd say of the things you mentioned only Haiti was actually good. Even then, the first plane out of Canada wasn't of aid, medicine or relief workers but reporters so it shows you where the government priority was on that. Maternal Health without abortion was garbage and every single one of our G8 partners said so. The economic crisis they didn't see coming and had to be forced to stimulate the economy. The bank tax had far more opponents than just Canada and the only trade barrier removed by Harper has been with Columbia which is going to do next to nothing for our economy. Instead, they chose to torpedo negotiations with the EU over the seal trade when that deal could have far reaching benefits for all Canadians. As for Afghanistan, I fail to see anything good that has come out of that situation. The EU, the UN and NATO have all been screaming that prisoners we're handing over were being tortured and look how that turned out.

To add to that, he's made partisan attacks at international events which no one understands. He completely tarnhised Canadian neutrality in the middle east by openly supporting Israel and he slashed foreign aid and money (which he's only started to reverse because it looks good for the upcoming campaign) to foreign organizations for partisan reasons.

[M.Dancer]

I'd say of the things you mentioned only Haiti was actually good. Even then, the first plane out of Canada wasn't of aid, medicine or relief workers but reporters

You have mentioned that before and I'm pretty sure you were corrected.

[M.Dancer]

Twice even..in two different threads, at least. This is the third time you have repeated your innaccuracy.

Not exactly true... The plane contained some reporters, but it also contained troops and much needed supplies and equipment. The biggest problem doesn't appear to be the government's desire for a photo-op, but the general disorganization of the disaster relief team. Now, whether it was the fault of the Conservative government is debatable (and some might think that it should be the job of the government to set overall policy, not micromanage troop deployments.)

Actually, the article points out that the reporters were actually bumping security personnel off the flights, not necessarily refrigeration equipment. (And some security people were necessary, after all, you couldn't send supplies out without any protection. (The refrigeration equipment was bumped by "unnamed groups", so who knows what they were or what they were doing.)

There does appear to have been a huge clusterf*ck going on, with a lot of mistakes by many groups. Not sure if "politics" played as big a role as other problems. (The article had mentioned other problems, such as "...the core group of military personnel that's supposed to be in a state of high readiness with equipment stored in a special ‘High Readiness Warehouse’ didn't appear fully ready to deploy.")

[Smallc]

I'd say of the things you mentioned only Haiti was actually good. Even then, the first plane out of Canada wasn't of aid, medicine or relief workers but reporters so it shows you where the government priority was on that.

The first plane was actually full of a reconnaissance team. I watched it happen pretty much play by play.

Maternal Health without abortion was garbage and every single one of our G8 partners said so.

That may be, but the theme has done a great deal, as will the money.

The economic crisis they didn't see coming and had to be forced to stimulate the economy.

And came out looking like a rose on the international stage.

The bank tax had far more opponents than just Canada

But Canada was the one who got it killed, through a tireless crusade....at least that's the image that was presented.

and the only trade barrier removed by Harper has been with Columbia which is going to do next to nothing for our economy.

There were other things, and there is more in the works. There was also, for example, China.

Instead, they chose to torpedo negotiations with the EU over the seal trade when that deal could have far reaching benefits for all Canadians.

A deal can still be reached on that. Negotiations haven't stopped.

As for Afghanistan, I fail to see anything good that has come out of that situation.

Canada has worked tirelessly to bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan...one of the few countries to do so.

The EU, the UN and NATO have all been screaming that prisoners we're handing over were being tortured and look how that turned out.

But most of the world doesn't seem to care about that.

To add to that, he's made partisan attacks at international events which no one understands.

And no one but you remembers.

He completely tarnhised Canadian neutrality in the middle east by openly supporting Israel

The government also chastised Israel when appropriate (expanding settlements).

and he slashed foreign aid and money (which he's only started to reverse because it looks good for the upcoming campaign) to foreign organizations for partisan reasons.

Foreign aid was never slashed. It has been capped for five years going forward at its highest ever level. I think you're letting your hate for this government cloud your judgement on this issue. We've had this exact discussion before, and I doubt public opinion agrees with you on this particular issue.

[M.Dancer]

I should add, that if the reporters had been bumped off the plane, the usual suspects would be screamming blue murder that Harper was censoring the media, etc etc ad nauseum...

[nicky10013]

You have mentioned that before and I'm pretty sure you were corrected.

There's a thread on it. Posted link to the Globe and Mail article. You want to find it and prove me wrong, have fun.

[nicky10013]

The first plane was actually full of a reconnaissance team. I watched it happen pretty much play by play.

Reported in the Globe and Mail.

That may be, but the theme has done a great deal, as will the money.

If this is about international relations, which the last time I checked it was, any time you're rebuked by 7 of the 8 most powerful countries in the world and they have to take up the slack because you're pushing a partisan agenda, that's not successful. International relations is about endearing us to other nation states so we can get benefit from it. No matter how good it looks at home, if we piss off other nations, it's a failure, end of story.

And came out looking like a rose on the international stage.

I have a subscription to the Economist, Foreign Affairs, I read newsweek and the NYT. Harper never gets the credit, just Canada. Indeed, a few articles have specifically given the praise to Paul Martin. Afterall, he's the politician who most deserves it.

But Canada was the one who got it killed, through a tireless crusade....at least that's the image that was presented.

Of course it was the image that was presented. In terms of domestic media consumption, image means nothing.

There were other things, and there is more in the works. There was also, for example, China.

We should've been where we are with China right now 4 years ago.

A deal can still be reached on that. Negotiations haven't stopped.

It can, we'll see how that goes.

Canada has worked tirelessly to bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan...one of the few countries to do so.

We're failing big time.

But most of the world doesn't seem to care about that.

When most of these things are rated classified, how do we really know?

And no one but you remembers.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Harper+apologizes+criticizing+Ignatieff/1778259/story.html

The government also chastised Israel when appropriate (expanding settlements).

Also inappropriate.

Foreign aid was never slashed. It has been capped for five years going forward at its highest ever level. I think you're letting your hate for this government cloud your judgement on this issue. We've had this exact discussion before, and I doubt public opinion agrees with you on this particular issue.

Foreign aid has been capped but most of it has been moved into Afghanistan when it could be far more useful going to other countries, effectively slashing it for countries that need it the most - IE subsaharan Africa.

Edited September 22, 2010 by nicky10013

[capricorn]

How?

Nice. Nicky makes a claim that Harper is a failure on the international stage without offering anything to substantiate the claim. Then smallc disagrees and Nicky asks smallc for proof. OK.