How Trudeau lost my vote

[dre]

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.).

The reason is demographics... Israel will never give up its status as a Jewish state... and the combination of assimilating millions of palestinans and the fact that arabs in both Israel and Palestine have a higher birth rate than jews would threaten Israels plan to maintain a jewish majority for much longer.

Its just a fantasy. Theres zero support for this idea on either side.

If Canada wants to help solve Conflict: Dirtfarm, maybe it could give the Jews Saskatchewan... Its much better land, and Israelis would probably get along pretty well with Canadians. Problem is its not the land their fake god promised them!

[-1=e^ipi]

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.

Yes. I don't give a damn about which invisible being some people prayed to 3500 years ago. There should be no theocracies period. No Isreal, no Saudi Arabia, no Islamic Republic of Iran, no Bhutan. It doesn't work in the modern era and only creates conflict.

[-1=e^ipi]

Please cite evidence the Canadian government has funded Islamists in Syria.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/31/canada-sent-millions-to-syrian-rebels

Also cites that the north pole belongs to Denmark.

Please see my response to Moonbox. But here is another source.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/12/09/canada_makes_territorial_claim_for_north_pole.html

The Harper government insisted that the Canadian scientists alter science to fit their desire to claim the north pole for political reasons.

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

Refusal to recognize any possible situation in which Crimea, Donentsk and Luhansk can democratically chose via a referendum to become independent of Ukraine. Not just under the questionable circumstances of the recent referendum, but under any situation. Obviously Russia is being hypocritical here as well (they would never allow for a Chenchnyan referendum).

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?

Russia never invaded Ukraine. They did invade South Ossetia in 2008, but that is about it.

With respect to unnecessarily antagonizing, I mean we have unnecessarily unfriendly relations with Russia for no good reason, which will harm both our countries and won't help the people of Ukraine. If you want to help the people of Ukraine, stop creating polarization.

[-1=e^ipi]

The reason is demographics... Israel will never give up its status as a Jewish state... and the combination of assimilating millions of palestinans and the fact that arabs in both Israel and Palestine have a higher birth rate than jews would threaten Israels plan to maintain a jewish majority for much longer.

Demographics is a decent counter argument.

Its just a fantasy. Theres zero support for this idea on either side.

Of course it's fantasy. Then again, so is the two state solution. There will not be peace in the region for decades. Hamas does not want peace.

[Big Guy]

...

I never thought I would agree but it really doesn't seem to make a difference.

If you think that it really does not make a difference and that attitude spreads than our democracy is in trouble. If there is a problem then it is with the people who are looking to get elected - not the system. If you do not vote then you are allowing others to put these people into positions of power. Are you prepared to do that?

[-1=e^ipi]

If there is a problem then it is with the people who are looking to get elected - not the system. If you do not vote then you are allowing others to put these people into positions of power. Are you prepared to do that?

BS, our electoral system is flawed. The first-past-the-post system prevents political competition between ideologies and gives us terrible options like the liberals, conservatives and NDP.

If you do not vote then you are allowing others to put these people into positions of power. Are you prepared to do that?

Or you could spoil your ballot and not give legitimacy to terrible options...

Tell me, if you had to choose between voting for Hitler, voting for Stalin or spoiling your ballot, which would you do?

[Big Guy]

...

Tell me, if you had to choose between voting for Hitler, voting for Stalin or spoiling your ballot, which would you do?

The reason I continue to vote is that I do not want to eventually have the choices between people like Hitler and Stalin. Democracy is not perfect, can you suggest a better system?

[Icebound]

Russia never invaded Ukraine.

Interesting semantics on the term "invade"....

So if the premier of Quebec were to make a phone call to Paris, and the next day a couple of thousand troops show up in Montreal and QC, France signs a declaration that Quebec is France..... then that would NOT be an "invasion of Canada", because if was requested? Am I getting that right?

...

[-1=e^ipi]

The reason I continue to vote is that I do not want to eventually have the choices between people like Hitler and Stalin.

If you want to vote, fine. But realize that there are some people that feel so alienated by the current political parties that they would prefer to spoil their ballots than give legitimacy to terrible options.

Democracy is not perfect, can you suggest a better system?

How about proportional representation rather than first past the post for a start?

[eyeball]

Democracy is not perfect, can you suggest a better system?

How about more of it?

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

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.

All Harper does is spout platitudes and get ignored. "Lecture and leave" it has become known as.

[Moonbox]

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.

The rise of fundamentalist militias in Syria has nothing to do with the West. Their LACK of involvement in Syria has been what's angered Syrian rebels, and they blame that for the rise of fundamentalist militias.

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.

The West doesn't align themselves with 'Islamists'. It aligns itself with friendly, predictable and cooperative governments.

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.

Nobody cares.

Look, Canada's claims shouldn't be made arbitrarily,

The borders and lines drawn up are nothing but arbitrary. Claiming vast swathes of territory and expecting people to recognize those claims is pointless if you don't have a presence there.

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

Not patriotism, pragmatism. Canada has virtually unparalleled access to the Arctic region, particularly around our archipelago. Our claim is very strong, very easy to press, and short of large scale military intervention, difficult to prevent.

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.

Russia has all of the blame. Clearly you haven't followed what's been going on in Ukraine over the last ten years, but Ukrainians are dirt poor, unhappy and tired of being bullied by Russia, not to mention the horrible memories of Soviet genocide previous generations of Ukrainians endured. Their close ties with Russia have long been fruitless and overall probably detrimental. When Ukrainians decided they wanted to look to the EU for hope and for a better future, Putin's panties got twisted and he's been punishing them ever since. Essentially an ex-KGB thug, Putin's having a tantrum watching the USSR's former sphere of influence shrink and is trying to bully the former Soviet republics back in line. It's not just Ukraine either. Moldova recently made moves to open further ties in the EU, and Putin imposed a ban on imports of Moldovan wine (one of their largest exports) to Russia as a result!

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.

The degree to which the West supported Ukrainian protesters (with cheap words) cannot be compared by a reasonable person to the Russian response, which was to send troops and weapons across the border to seize territory and start a civil war where thousands have died.

Rejecting the right to self determination of Eastern Ukrainians while supporting the right to self determination of people in Kosovo to separate from Serbia.

Nobody's rejecting the right to self-determination, but there's usually a process and negotiations that go along with it. The Russians militarily enforced a full circumvention of these processes in Crimea and are attempting to do the same in Eastern Ukraine. Clearly you don't see the difference, but that's not surprising.

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.

They've long been unfriendly to one another, as one party has been subservient to the other, and it always suffered under this arrangement.

Canada and other western countries could have taken a more neutral approach (while still being critical of Russia).

No, a more neutral approach is implicit permission for Putin to press his ambitions further. History tends to repeat itself, and you don't have to look back far to see how things turn out when you allow a belligerent power to bully its neighbours without consequences.

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.

It hurts their economy a lot more than it hurts ours, essentially turning the tables on Russia's attempts to economically bully its smaller neighbours. If the Russians are pressed hard enough financially, they'll likely back down. They were counting on Europe (particularly Germany) not having the conviction to impose these sanctions.

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?

Well shucks! What a great idea! Let's promote secularism in a region where secularism as a concept is violently rejected! While we're at it, let's promote abortion rights in the Baptist Church! We'll not stop there, however. Democracy in North Korea too! We'll just...you know...PROMOTE IT!

Edited July 30, 2014 by Moonbox

[dre]

Demographics is a decent counter argument.

Of course it's fantasy. Then again, so is the two state solution. There will not be peace in the region for decades. Hamas does not want peace.

Neither side wants peace.

[Moonbox]

All Harper does is spout platitudes and get ignored. "Lecture and leave" it has become known as.

I don't think you know what platitudes mean.

[Bonam]

Yes. I don't give a damn about which invisible being some people prayed to 3500 years ago. There should be no theocracies period. No Isreal, no Saudi Arabia, no Islamic Republic of Iran, no Bhutan. It doesn't work in the modern era and only creates conflict.

Hamas wants the complete destruction of Israel, while Zionism is still a force in Isreal.

You seem pretty smart so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don't know very much about Israel:

1) Israel is not a theocracy. Israel is a secular democratic state. It does have strong religious influences, though not as strong as for example in the US.

2) Zionism is simply the belief that there should exist a sovereign state as a homeland for the Jewish people. By the way, being Jewish is more about one's ethnic origins than one's religion. Many Israeli Jews are atheists and agnostics. In fact, Israel has lower rates of religiosity than many Western countries. Given the historical evidence of over 2000 years that living as minorities in the nations of others is very unhealthy for Jews, having their own state is a simple matter of self-preservation, and that's what Zionism is about. If you're reaction to this is one of disbelief, that being a Jew is a matter of following Judaism, you should read a bit on the topic prior to replying. Equating being an ethnic Jew with being a believer in Judaism is a mistake mostly made by North American English speakers, due to the failure of English in having two modernly used words to make the distinction. But it is no less silly of an assumption than assuming that "Muslim" and "Arab" mean the same thing, or that "Christian" and "White" mean the same thing, when they clearly do not. So too one must differentiate between being a Jew, an ethnic designation, and believing in Judaism, a religious one.

Of course it's fantasy. Then again, so is the two state solution. There will not be peace in the region for decades. Hamas does not want peace.

The two state solution, while difficult due to the antagonism of the parties involved, is the only plausible solution. In fact, it's already close to the operational reality (or at least a three state solution is). Gaza is independently administered by Hamas, and in the West Bank the PA has a slowly growing level of autonomy/sovereignty.

[dre]

2) Zionism is simply the belief that there should exist a sovereign state as a homeland for the Jewish people.

Not exactly... Its the belief that it should exist on a certain piece of land (Eretz Yisrael... the land that they think their fake god promised them), and thats the problem... that land encompasses the occupied territories and israel, and more.

This quote from Ben Gurion illustrates that mindset pretty nicely.

Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?

And the project is only half done... Israel is slowly but sure taking the rest of that land, and as long as zionism is the dominant foundation of Israeli government policy they will never agree to a two state solution. Its right there in Likuds consitution.... No arab state west of the Jordan... EVER.

[Boges]

So a thread about JT becomes the site's 7,000th ME thread.

Slow Clap MLW

Look if JT didn't condemn Hamas he'd be toast. He must have learned from not condemning the Boston Marathon Bombers.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Boges

[Moonbox]

Not exactly... Its the belief that it should exist on a certain piece of land (Eretz Yisrael... the land that they think their fake god promised them), and thats the problem... that land encompasses the occupied territories and israel, and more.

Whether or not they think their 'fake god' (talk about being tolerant/open-minded lol) promised them that land, Jerusalem and the surrounding area was the land they historically identified with, and which they were essentially driven out of by multiple parties, multiple times. Now they're there, and have been for 60 years.

And the project is only half done... Israel is slowly but sure taking the rest of that land, and as long as zionism is the dominant foundation of Israeli government policy they will never agree to a two state solution. Its right there in Likuds consitution.... No arab state west of the Jordan... EVER.

You could equally say that as long as Palestinians reject Israel's right to exist, there will be no two state solution, and Israel has no reason to stop settling occupied territory. If you're going to get attacked, or threatened to be attacked, whether you build settlements or not, you might as well build the settlements.

What do you think is more possible? Palestinians and Arab states recognize Israel's right to exist, or Israeli Jews dismantle their nation and leave as demanded?

Edited July 30, 2014 by Moonbox

[dre]

What do you think is more possible? Palestinians and Arab states recognize Israel's right to exist, or Israeli Jews dismantle their nation and leave as demanded?

Fatah has already recognized Israels right to exist, and it has gotten them nowhere. Absolutely NOTHING the palestinians can do will change whats going to happen.

[Shady]

Yes. I don't give a damn about which invisible being some people prayed to 3500 years ago. There should be no theocracies period. No Isreal, no Saudi Arabia, no Islamic Republic of Iran, no Bhutan. It doesn't work in the modern era and only creates conflict.

Israel isn't a theocracy.

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't think you know what platitudes mean.

I am quite aware of what the word means. And just to inform you, it derives from the french word plat, meaning flat, which is a good description of Harper in QP trying to explain his scandal ridden government.

[guyser]

Israel isn't a theocracy.

Yea, its a semi-theocracy.

Working pretty hard to lose the 'semi' too.

[Shady]

Yea, its a semi-theocracy.Working pretty hard to lose the 'semi' too.

How so?

I'm pretty sure it's a democracy. Where all citizens enjoy the same rights and freedoms.

[overthere]

Yea, its a semi-theocracy.

Working pretty hard to lose the 'semi' too.

No, it is a democracy and by a huge margin the highest functioning one in the region.

What do you think is more possible? Palestinians and Arab states recognize Israel's right to exist, or Israeli Jews dismantle their nation and leave as demanded?

At least a couple of 'arab states' recognize Israel, namely Egypt and Jordan, both of them neighbours. There are also many Asian and African countries with mainly Muslim populations that recognize Israel.

I think it is unlikely that the Israelis will put down there weapons and meekly die on command. Negotiations can start from that reality.

[Bonam]

And the project is only half done... Israel is slowly but sure taking the rest of that land, and as long as zionism is the dominant foundation of Israeli government policy they will never agree to a two state solution. Its right there in Likuds consitution.... No arab state west of the Jordan... EVER.

Likud is one political party out of many and not synonymous with Israel. Previous Israeli administrations have been more amenable to the idea, and I'm sure other future ones will be as well.