How Trudeau lost my vote

[Argus]

Canada' position on the ME conflict has historically been neutrality.

You mean previous governments were too mealy mouthed and cowardly to say anything, even to vote against the continuing stream of one-sided anti-Israeli resolutions which the Muslim block keeps bringing to the UN.

[Argus]

Both sides are committing horrendously evil acts.

Calling anyone "pro-hamas" is asinine and meaningless rhetoric.

Really? Do you believe there are no people who are pro Hamas?

[The_Squid]

Really? Do you believe there are no people who are pro Hamas?

On this forum? There may be a couple people who are playing characters who may seem "pro-Hamas"... but, generally, no.

I don't think BC_Chick is "pro-Hamas", whatever that means.... It's rhetorical nonsense.

[Boges]

On this forum? There may be a couple people who are playing characters who may seem "pro-Hamas"... but, generally, no.

I don't think BC_Chick is "pro-Hamas", whatever that means.... It's rhetorical nonsense.

What about the people in protests across Canada rocking the Hamas flag?

[The_Squid]

What about the people in protests across Canada rocking the Hamas flag?

Are they on this forum?

Let's keep it in context...

Edited July 29, 2014 by The_Squid

[-1=e^ipi]

@ BC_Chick, I disagree with what you say regarding energy policy, but other than that, welcome to the club. Become a ballot spoiler like me and reject the major policial parties.

Maybe you want to check out the minor parties? Most suck, but there are a few ones that are more tolerable than the mainstream parties (Freedom Party for instance).

[-1=e^ipi]

I believe that it is a mistake to not vote.

To choose to not vote is a vote against democracy.

... Or you can spoil your ballot.

[-1=e^ipi]

Tim, you're wrong, the country is very closely split on keystone, and 50% want neutrality in the Middle East.

CC, I voted NDP last round, but I'm not crazy about Mulcair. If I do end up voting for one of the 3 it'll be NDP, but I doubt that'll happen.

Political parties should base decisions on what makes sense based upon the evidence, not what is popular. This is the flaw with the liberal party. It is also why they chose Justin Trudeau over someone like Martha Hall Findlay.

The fact that Justin Trudeau won the leadership convention made me realize how absurd the liberal party is.

[-1=e^ipi]

In this case Hamas is clearly evil - neutrality requires that this be acknowledged. If one wants to discuss the complexities of the situation it must start with a clear condemnation of Hamas followed by an emphasis need for constructive engagement with the Palestinian authority (not Hamas), an end to settlement building and a move to a 2-state solution.

Why not a 1-state solution?

[Moonlight Graham]

CC, I voted NDP last round, but I'm not crazy about Mulcair. If I do end up voting for one of the 3 it'll be NDP, but I doubt that'll happen.

How in the heck could you vote for that slimy rat Layton and yet not Mulcair, who has done a very good job holding the Harper gov to account in the House of Commons?

[Moonlight Graham]

How Trudeau lost my vote

Also, I'm wondering what Trudeau did to gain your vote in the first place, since your statement assumes you were going to vote for the Liberals?

[eyeball]

The country is not very closely split on Keystone when it comes to questions of economic growth and the economy. Sorry, but you're in the minority.

The split is very different when the question is about environmental sustainability. Then you're in the minority. Sorry.

[Icebound]

Why not a 1-state solution?

Oh, please DO explain how that would work

....

[bush_cheney2004]

One state solution..."Multiculturalism" Trudeau style !!

[overthere]

The problem with all these Muslims and Jews and such in the ME is that they worship false Gods.

If they only brought Jesus into their hearts, they'd live in happiness.

Jimmy Swaggart is underemployed and has a global communications network to teach these people how to act like good Christians.

[Moonbox]

The final straw was his official statement on Gaza and the subsequent silence as the death toll mounted. I could see initially why he'd come out with the usual banter but I figured he'd say something, anything, as the body bags piled up.

Say something like what? The initial statement was made with a pretty understanding of what was to follow. Hamas fires rockets (mostly) ineffectively at Israel, and literally the only thing Israel can do is retaliate. Israel's retaliation was always certain to crushing, and it was expected that a lot of people in Gaza would die. Trudeau made his initial statement of support of Israel despite all of that, and I commend him on it. It at least gives the appearance that he considers the issues, rather than blindly antagonizing his allies like his father did.

I would've really liked to see him make his distinction on what I believe are Harper's shortcomings - lack of respect for the environment and his good/evil approach to foreign policy.

Harper's lack of respect for the environment is less about hating the environment, and more about rejecting dumb, ineffective and expensive ideas that most Canadians also reject. His foreign policy is actually a foreign policy. Whether or not you like it, it's more effective to take principled positions and stick to them than it is to spout platitudes and be ignored. Canadians cling to the memory of Lester Pearson, but he led Canada in a post-WW2 era where Canada had far more clout and influence with the British, French and US. Nowadays Canada is essentially ignored and irrelevant to Europe and little more than an extension of the US economy - an important trading partner to be occasionally soothed with cheap words. Our days of honest-broker are over, because nobody outside Canada really cares what Canada has to say.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Moonbox

[Boges]

The problem with all these Muslims and Jews and such in the ME is that they worship false Gods.

If they only brought Jesus into their hearts, they'd live in happiness.

Jimmy Swaggart is underemployed and has a global communications network to teach these people how to act like good Christians.

Actually Christians needs Israel to exist so they can be raptured.

IT'S IN REVELATIONS!!!

[-1=e^ipi]

His foreign policy is actually a foreign policy.

Yes, his wonderful foreign policy of funding Islamists in Syria, claiming that the North Pole belongs to Canada (when it is Danish Territory), unnecessarily antagonizing Russia, and not recognizing the right to self determination of the Eastern Ukrainians. *sarcasm*

[-1=e^ipi]

Oh, please DO explain how that would work

Well rather than have 2 religion bases states that demonize each other, why not have a single secular state that gives people equal rights regardless of their religious affiliation? You know, like how it works in so many other places (Canada, Australia, Japan, United States, Western Europe, etc.).

[Smallc]

The split is very different when the question is about environmental sustainability. Then you're in the minority. Sorry.

Most of us realize that the oil will get to market anyway. Pipelines are the safest way and the way with the smallest carbon footprint.

Besides that the pocket book comes first for almost everyone.

[Moonbox]

Yes, his wonderful foreign policy of funding Islamists in Syria,

Providing limited support for a popular uprising against a vicious dictatorship. Funding Islamic militants was never part of the equation.

claiming that the North Pole belongs to Canada (when it is Danish Territory),

Oh no! We've offended the Danes! Their tiny nation has no more claim over the North Pole than Canada does, as it's uninhabited. They have even less ability to establish a presence there than Canada does, which is the whole point of Harper's language regarding the region. The borders you draw on a map are meaningless unless you actually have people living, working and patrolling the area, which is what he intends to have happen.

unnecessarily antagonizing Russia, and not recognizing the right to self determination of the Eastern Ukrainians. *sarcasm*

Antagonizing Russia!? Wow! Someone sure has a screwy picture of the world! Self-determination is one thing, but punishing a neighboring country for drifting away from your sphere of influence by inciting a revolt and supplying it with weapons is another thing altogether! From here, it doesn't seem like you have any clue what you're talking about!

Well rather than have 2 religion bases states that demonize each other, why not have a single secular state that gives people equal rights regardless of their religious affiliation? You know, like how it works in so many other places (Canada, Australia, Japan, United States, Western Europe, etc.).

WOW! What a great idea! Yes! Let's just make everyone there embrace Western democracy and legal systems! It's THAT simple.

How old are you?

[Icebound]

Well rather than have 2 religion bases states that demonize each other, why not have a single secular state that gives people equal rights regardless of their religious affiliation? You know, like how it works in so many other places (Canada, Australia, Japan, United States, Western Europe, etc.).

Excellent idea.... but you do know that it would require a coup, right?

The current Government of the Land states thusly on its website:

Israel is a land and a people. The history of the Jewish people, and its roots in the Land of Israel, spans some 35 centuries. In this land, its cultural, national and religious identity was formed; here, its physical presence has been maintained unbroken throughout the centuries, even after the majority was forced into exile. With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Jewish independence, lost almost 2,000 years earlier, was renewed.

(http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Pages/ISRAEL%20IN%20BRIEF.aspx)

So your job is going to be to revoke that statement into something secular.

Much as that may be the most likely road to peace, it ain't gonna happen.

Which means, of course, that most likely PEACE ain't gonna happen.

...

...

[Argus]

Yes, his wonderful foreign policy of funding Islamists in Syria, claiming that the North Pole belongs to Canada (when it is Danish Territory), unnecessarily antagonizing Russia, and not recognizing the right to self determination of the Eastern Ukrainians. *sarcasm*

Please cite evidence the Canadian government has funded Islamists in Syria. Also cites that the north pole belongs to Denmark.

and what exactly are you talking about in saying he refuses to 'recognize the right of self-determination' in east Ukraine?

You make a lot of rather strange accusations without supporting evidence.

As far as 'unnecessarily antagonizing' Putin, what exactly do you object to? Do you want him to make friends with Putin? Do you want him to keep silent and make no complaints or protests about Russia invading its neighbours?

[Argus]

Well rather than have 2 religion bases states that demonize each other, why not have a single secular state that gives people equal rights regardless of their religious affiliation? You know, like how it works in so many other places (Canada, Australia, Japan, United States, Western Europe, etc.).

You mean how it works in most of the world? Ie, jamming different tribes who loath each other into the same 'country' which produces constant civil war and violence? Not a good idea.

[-1=e^ipi]

Providing limited support for a popular uprising against a vicious dictatorship. Funding Islamic militants was never part of the equation.

It was obvious what would happen, but people like Harper, Obama, Cameron and others have this deluded self-righteousness that the can-do-no-wrong west was helping the poor oppressed from an evil dictator. Rather than look at the situation more objectively and realize the obvious (that the problems in the middle east are primarily the result of religion). They don't want to understand the cultural differences so they make poor policy decisions. I have no doubt Harper did not want to fund Islamists. But his belief that funding the Free Syrian Army would not enable Islamists to become powerful is about as reasonable as his belief in magic talking snakes.

The situation in Syria (& now Iraq) over the past 2-3 years has been an avoidable disaster in slow motion, that the idiot politicians of the west were too stupid to avoid (because in most Western countries you have the cultural relativists on one side and the religious nuts on the other).

The west needs to stop aligning themselves with Islamists and realize that Saudi oil money funding of Wahhabi Islam globally is one of the main causes of the current situation be it in Kenya, Nigeria, Mali, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, etc.

Oh no! We've offended the Danes! Their tiny nation has no more claim over the North Pole than Canada does, as it's uninhabited. They have even less ability to establish a presence there than Canada does, which is the whole point of Harper's language regarding the region. The borders you draw on a map are meaningless unless you actually have people living, working and patrolling the area, which is what he intends to have happen.

It's not a matter of offending the Danes. I couldn't care less if the Danes are offended.

1. It's not Canadian Territory. Greenland is closer to the North Pole, and more importantly, the North Pole is on the opposite side of the Lomonosov Ridge as Canada.

Look, Canada's claims shouldn't be made arbitrarily, it should be based upon the UN Law of the Sea which Russia, Canada and Denmark have all agreed to. I'm not the biggest fan of the UN, but the use of the Law of the Sea to establish territory in a peaceful manner is very useful. There is actually very little potential arctic dispute between the 3 countries if they follow the Law of the Sea (most of it will be between Denmark and Russia).

What you and Harper want to do is set a dangerous precedent by claiming territory that isn't ours and which cannot be justified based on the geography of the arctic. By your logic, since it is uninhabited, then why can't China claim it? That may seem silly at first, but China considers itself a 'near-arctic state' and wants negotiating power as a stakeholder in arctic negotiations. Not to mention all the other ridiculous territorial claims China has (claim of Japan's Senkaku islands, claim of South Korea's Socotra Rock, claim of like the entire South China Sea). Then you have Russia which for political reasons also wants to make absurd claims that aren't based on science (have you read some of the 'scientific studies' they have done? They are so ridiculously biased politically; they claim that the Lomonosov Ridge is part of the Eurasian continental shelf, which is absurd since the Gakkel Ridge separates the North American and Eurasian plates).

And to top it all off, our so-called 'friend' to the south doesn't respect out claim to the internal waters in the arctic archipelago. You really want to give legitimacy to all that nonsense by having Canada make absurd territorial claims as well?

What we should do is recognize the North Pole as Danish territory, agree to draw the border somewhere along the Lomonosov Ridge, and work with Denmark to counter the absurd claims for Russia & China as well as getting the US to recognize Canadian Sovereignty over the Arctic Archipelago. We share a common continental shelf with Greenland, so our interests and the interests of Denmark align. Plus both countries are Western Liberal Democracies and Denmark can be reasoned with.

But you would rather throw that out the window for the sake of blind patriotism...

Antagonizing Russia!? Wow! Someone sure has a screwy picture of the world! Self-determination is one thing, but punishing a neighboring country for drifting away from your sphere of influence by inciting a revolt and supplying it with weapons is another thing altogether! From here, it doesn't seem like you have any clue what you're talking about!

Russia certainly has a lot of blame with respect to the current situation in Ukraine (arguably they started the whole thing by forcing the former president to cancel the EU deals), but the policies of most western countries have not helped either.

Western countries have been immensely hypocritical in their approach. Supporting violent protests in Western Ukraine while denouncing the violent protests in Eastern Ukraine, even going so far as to support the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine. Rejecting the right to self determination of Eastern Ukrainians while supporting the right to self determination of people in Kosovo to separate from Serbia.

The problem with Ukraine is polarization. You have two groups (Ukrainian speaking people in the west vs Russian Speaking in the South and East) that are slowly being more unfriendly to one another. Therefore, any steps that will increase this polarization will worsen the situation, while any steps that will reduce this polarization and call for dialogue and plurality will help. Allowing Russian to be Ukraine's second official language would go a long way (it is hypocritical to suggest that French should be an official language in Canada while insisting that Russian should not be in Ukraine). Putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to recognize the right to self determination of the Eastern Ukrainians would go a long way to making the Eastern Ukrainians feel less alienated by the government in Kiev.

Canada and other western countries could have taken a more neutral approach (while still being critical of Russia). Instead, most politicians seem stuck in this dangerous cold war mentality and have even gone so far as to create unnecessary trade wars and sanctions with Russia, which hurts both our economies and accomplishes nothing other than satisfying the egos of politicians.

WOW! What a great idea! Yes! Let's just make everyone there embrace Western democracy and legal systems! It's THAT simple.

Obvious it's not that simple. Neither a two state nor a 1 state solution will occur and this conflict will continue for decades until cultural change will occur. Hamas wants the complete destruction of Israel, while Zionism is still a force in Isreal. Religion drives this conflict because both sides think that some invisible being in the sky has given them the right over this land.

But that said, if the root of the issue is religion, then why not advocate for secularism and plurality, rather than try to divide and further polarize people? If a Palestinian state were created, do you really think the terrorist attacks would stop? No they would continue.