No Military Action - Ever! Another Trudeau Gaffe?

[Keepitsimple]

Not scary at all. I have heard interviews with JT on various radio shows and hes quite articulate.

Then you're still delusional. We've seen it over and over...if Trudeau doesn't have a scripted answer, he's a mixture of "ums", "ers" and dodges. They will regret not selecting Marc Garneau as leader. He's sinking in the polls and the even though the Backroom Boys have managed to hide his biggest weakness - an inability to grasp the issues and intelligently discuss them - like Harper did in that hour-long video. The Backroom Boys have done their best to shield him from having to speak unscripted - but eventually, he'll have to prove that he's not "vacuous".....and that is proving to be very, very difficult.

[On Guard for Thee]

Then you're still delusional. We've seen it over and over...if Trudeau doesn't have a scripted answer, he's a mixture of "ums", "ers" and dodges. They will regret not selecting Marc Garneau as leader. He's sinking in the polls and the even though the Backroom Boys have managed to hide his biggest weakness - an inability to grasp the issues and intelligently discuss them - like Harper did in that hour-long video. The Backroom Boys have done their best to shield him from having to speak unscripted - but eventually, he'll have to prove that he's not "vacuous".....and that is proving to be very, very difficult.

Well Harper has already proved that he is, at least unless your delusional, so the worst JT can do is equate.

[Keepitsimple]

Well Harper has already proved that he is, at least unless your delusional, so the worst JT can do is equate.

There's that 12 year old again....making no sense at all.

[On Guard for Thee]

There's that 12 year old again....making no sense at all.

Just keeping it simple so you can understand.

[PIK]

Garneau would have been a big problem for harper.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Harper loudly called for us to join the Iraq war. I'd like to hear an apology for that before I take his opinion seriously on any military matter.

[PIK]

Harper loudly called for us to join the Iraq war. I'd like to hear an apology for that before I take his opinion seriously on any military matter.

WikiLeaks has revealed more lies about the Iraq war, this time from the Canadian government. According to CBC News:

[E]ven as [former prime minister Jean] Chretien told the Commons that Canada wouldn’t participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Canadian diplomats were secretly telling their U.S. counterparts something entirely different. … According to the U.S. account, [Canadian diplomat] James Wright “emphasized” that contrary to public statements by the prime minister, Canadian naval and air forces could be “discreetly” put to use during the pending U.S.-led assault on Iraq and its aftermath

But even though Canada was lucky to have missed what could have been a very costly experience for our armed forces, the optics of the event were always terrible. The Canadian government waited until the last possible moment before declaring that it would not be participating. This left the government open to many awkward questions, including the problematic issue of hundreds of Canadian troops being sent to fight in Iraq, while on exchange with allied units. Indeed, General Walt Natynczyk — currently the top soldier in the Canadian Forces — commanded 35,000 troops in Iraq and 1,200 Canadian Forces personnel in the region were long rumoured (and now confirmed, thanks to WikiLeaks) to have been part of the war, despite Ottawa’s protestations.

Then opposition leader Stephen Harper was absolutely correct when he called the government “half-pregnant” and commented that while countries had, in the past, supported a war without sending troops, Canada was the first to send troops to a war it did not support. Prime Minister Harper’s support of Canadian participation in the war was controversial and something he had to distance himself from, but when pointing out the Liberals’ hypocrisy, he was right on the money. Desperate to avoid the Iraq War, Chretien sent virtually everything the army had to a peacekeeping mission in Kabul, told the world that he would not help in Iraq, but then put our forces already there at the disposal of our allies. That was dishonest to the Canadian voters, unfair to our allies and insulting to our troops, who were asked to take on a mission the government had already publicly repudiated.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jean-chretien-and-iraq-yet-more-proof-the-liberals-stood-for-nothing

At least harper was being honest. That is something we can not say about chretien when he was PM. Funny how the left just loved wiki leaks, but now it have come back to haunt them. So maybe spanky it is chretien that owes canadians a apology.

Edited August 28, 2015 by PIK

[Queenmandy85]

I favour a strong military in Canada. However, I am alone in this. Canadians do not want to spend the money to have a viable military. Therefore, if we are not going to have anything but a token force at a cost of over $20 billion, why bother having anything at all.

[SpankyMcFarland]

WikiLeaks has revealed more lies about the Iraq war, this time from the Canadian government. According to CBC News:

[E]ven as [former prime minister Jean] Chretien told the Commons that Canada wouldn’t participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Canadian diplomats were secretly telling their U.S. counterparts something entirely different. … According to the U.S. account, [Canadian diplomat] James Wright “emphasized” that contrary to public statements by the prime minister, Canadian naval and air forces could be “discreetly” put to use during the pending U.S.-led assault on Iraq and its aftermath

But even though Canada was lucky to have missed what could have been a very costly experience for our armed forces, the optics of the event were always terrible. The Canadian government waited until the last possible moment before declaring that it would not be participating. This left the government open to many awkward questions, including the problematic issue of hundreds of Canadian troops being sent to fight in Iraq, while on exchange with allied units. Indeed, General Walt Natynczyk — currently the top soldier in the Canadian Forces — commanded 35,000 troops in Iraq and 1,200 Canadian Forces personnel in the region were long rumoured (and now confirmed, thanks to WikiLeaks) to have been part of the war, despite Ottawa’s protestations.

Then opposition leader Stephen Harper was absolutely correct when he called the government “half-pregnant” and commented that while countries had, in the past, supported a war without sending troops, Canada was the first to send troops to a war it did not support. Prime Minister Harper’s support of Canadian participation in the war was controversial and something he had to distance himself from, but when pointing out the Liberals’ hypocrisy, he was right on the money. Desperate to avoid the Iraq War, Chretien sent virtually everything the army had to a peacekeeping mission in Kabul, told the world that he would not help in Iraq, but then put our forces already there at the disposal of our allies. That was dishonest to the Canadian voters, unfair to our allies and insulting to our troops, who were asked to take on a mission the government had already publicly repudiated.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jean-chretien-and-iraq-yet-more-proof-the-liberals-stood-for-nothing

At least harper was being honest. That is something we can not say about chretien when he was PM. Funny how the left just loved wiki leaks, but now it have come back to haunt them. So maybe spanky it is chretien that owes canadians a apology.

You don't challenge the point I made, then? Chrétien is a retired geezer somewhere but Harper still rules us and is very fond of playing a macho role on the Middle East. He should admit he was wrong about Iraq because it affects current policy.

[eyeball]

At least harper was being honest. That is something we can not say about chretien when he was PM. Funny how the left just loved wiki leaks, but now it have come back to haunt them. So maybe spanky it is chretien that owes canadians a apology.

Funny how you think Liberals are lefties. Maybe you owe lefties an apology.

As for Liberals being a bunch of two-faced liars though, I hear ya. No argument there.

[Derek 2.0]

Here's another one, Liberal backer and mayor of Oakville Ont compares retired vets at CPC rallies to the Nazi's Brownshirts.....

[Argus]

Here's another one, Liberal backer and mayor of Oakville Ont compares retired vets at CPC rallies to the Nazi's Brownshirts.....

There's something just so utterly self-righteous and superior about Lefties, and they glory in trying to find things which they can use to show how others aren't as noble as they are.

Harper uses top notch security people? Why, he must be like a Nazi! God, if only their intelligence level didn't so often tend to be a direct reciprocal of their smugness.

[Army Guy]

And yet, millions of Canadians have fallen for that liberal crap....and they are once again in the running for office....just how short are Canadians memories....

[PIK]

And now he is a against bill C-24.

[Keepitsimple]

Can't wait for CBC's power panel to bring Chretien/Iraq as a topic......

[eyeball]

There's something just so utterly self-righteous and superior about Lefties, and they glory in trying to find things which they can use to show how others aren't as noble as they are.

Well, you're right about the righteous superiority even if the reasons you cite are out to lunch. And it's Derek who's finding and posting obscure weird things here. You're suggesting Derek is a lefty? I suppose compared to you he probably is.

Harper uses top notch security people? Why, he must be like a Nazi! God, if only their intelligence level didn't so often tend to be a direct reciprocal of their smugness.

OTOH he could just be making a big vainglorious fuss about nothing for your benefit.

[Argus]

Well, you're right about the righteous superiority even if the reasons you cite are out to lunch.

I didn't cite specific reasons. You want reasons? Lefties want to help. They want to help everyone. All the time. They're very earnest and very determined about it, and know that this makes them good people. Anyone who disagrees with them is, by definition, OPPOSED to helping others. Therefore, they are BAD people.

Lefties don't generally put a lot of thought into what they want to do to "help" which is why it's often counterproductive and hideously expensive. They regard worrying about such things as a sign conservatives care more about money than about people. Lefties don't care about money, after all, only people! That's why conservatives are "Bad!".

[On Guard for Thee]

Can't wait for CBC's power panel to bring Chretien/Iraq as a topic......

Boy you really want to hurt Harper!

[eyeball]

Lefties don't generally put a lot of thought into what they want to do to "help" which is why it's often counterproductive and hideously expensive. They regard worrying about such things as a sign conservatives care more about money than about people. Lefties don't care about money, after all, only people! That's why conservatives are "Bad!".

Of course we care about money, we just don't care as much about it as we do people. What makes conservatives even worse than bad is that they willingly ignore that important distinction and swallow this regurgitated hooey like so many dogs chowing down their own vomit.

[Argus]

Of course we care about money, we just don't care as much about it as we do people.

You don't actually care about people, you care about making yourselves feel good by expressing how much you care about people, and by 'doing something', even if it's useless or less than useless.

What you don't like about conservatives is they care too, but then they take that extra step you won't, which is to think about whether there is anything which actually can be done which won't make things worse, or cost far more, for a limited value than a hundred other things we could be spending that money on.

We also bear in mind it doesn't make us especially noble to do stuff with other people's money.

[Keepitsimple]

You don't actually care about people, you care about making yourselves feel good by expressing how much you care about people, and by 'doing something', even if it's useless or less than useless.

What you don't like about conservatives is they care too, but then they take that extra step you won't, which is to think about whether there is anything which actually can be done which won't make things worse, or cost far more, for a limited value than a hundred other things we could be spending that money on.

We also bear in mind it doesn't make us especially noble to do stuff with other people's money.

It's called compassionate Conservatism.

[eyeball]

You don't actually care about people, you care about making yourselves feel good by expressing how much you care about people, and by 'doing something', even if it's useless or less than useless.

I'm surprised you didn't accuse lefties of going out of the way to deliberately make things worse...so there's more stuff to do something about.

What you don't like about conservatives is they care too, but then they take that extra step you won't, which is to think about whether there is anything which actually can be done which won't make things worse, or cost far more, for a limited value than a hundred other things we could be spending that money on.

Actually, I like conservatism for just that very reason - a cautious conservative approach is a completely natural and healthy thing in any society's considerations and deliberations before acting. The giant leap that conservatives always stumble over is when they let if not encourage institutions to organize society around their values to the exclusion of all others. It's no coincidence that conservative values align perfectly with virtually any people and institution of any political stripe in power and no coincidence that the worst enemies we're forever being warned of are even less liberal and more conservative than our conservatives.

We also bear in mind it doesn't make us especially noble to do stuff with other people's money.

No, the way to do that would be to do it with your own.

Like I said, actions speak louder than words and I'l take notice when conservatives start calling for war-bonds instead of using other people's money to shed other people's blood.

[Argus]

Like I said, actions speak louder than words and I'l take notice when conservatives start calling for war-bonds instead of using other people's money to shed other people's blood.

This 'pro war' theme is another one the Left loves to harp on, despite it being the Liberals who got us into almost every conflict. The only thing the Tories have done is send a few airplanes to the middle east in concert with our allies.

[eyeball]

The Liberals are not lefties - as their actions indicate, they're actually very conservative.