angrypenguin Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 The Iraq war was an entirely avoidable disaster. Questionable intelligence was used in a wilfully dishonest way. One of Chretien's 'greatest' achievements was keeping us out of that mess when Harper and his friends at the National Post were baying for involvement. He never apologized for that error which would have brought misery to many Canadian families. Misery??? My views are my own and not those of my employer.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Typical ignorance. Oh I didn't accuse him of being ignorant, just a poor leader.
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 The Iraq war was an entirely avoidable disaster. Questionable intelligence was used in a wilfully dishonest way. One of Chretien's 'greatest' achievements was keeping us out of that mess when Harper and his friends at the National Post were baying for involvement. He never apologized for that error which would have brought misery to many Canadian families. As opposed to Chretien getting us involved in Afghanistan which brought misery to many Canadian families? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 As opposed to Chretien getting us involved in Afghanistan which brought misery to many Canadian families? Pal, if you can't tell the difference, I really can't help you.
Newfoundlander Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Most people have resorted to BS here so it was to tiering to go through all the posts. Anyways, Rob Nicholson has announced he's seeking the interim leadership of the party, which doesn't surprise me at all. I expect Denis Lebel will be the final person to throw his name in for the job.
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Pal, if you can't tell the difference, I really can't help you. Buddy, if you can't explain the difference, then no, you can't. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Buddy, if you can't explain the difference, then no, you can't. Quite simply, one was illegal as it was based on trumped up info. about non existence weapons/threat to take out a dictator the US didn't like. The other arose as a response to an actual terrorist attack on US soil. See the difference?
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Quite simply, one was illegal as it was based on trumped up info. about non existence weapons/threat to take out a dictator the US didn't like. The other arose as a response to an actual terrorist attack on US soil. See the difference? Once again you're talking like a lawyer. I'm completely uninterested in technical points of law or the bickering of lawyers. From the perspective of Canada and the cost in blood and treasure to Canadians the difference between getting involved in Iraq and getting involved in Afghanistan was nil. The difference in terms of the morality of the actions was again pretty close to nil, as both governments which were attacked were murderous dictatorships with no real legitimacy. And I'm still waiting to here your cite about Bush being a war criminal. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Once again you're talking like a lawyer. I'm completely uninterested in technical points of law or the bickering of lawyers. From the perspective of Canada and the cost in blood and treasure to Canadians the difference between getting involved in Iraq and getting involved in Afghanistan was nil. The difference in terms of the morality of the actions was again pretty close to nil, as both governments which were attacked were murderous dictatorships with no real legitimacy. And I'm still waiting to here your cite about Bush being a war criminal. Wars by their very nature, usually lead to a cost in blood and treasure. You asked for the differences between two particular ones. I explained. http://www.globalresearch.ca/bush-adminstration-convicted-of-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/5336860 Edited October 25, 2015 by On Guard for Thee
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Buddy, if you can't explain the difference, then no, you can't. Friend, I am quite sure I could not explain it to you. What you need is sunny ways. Edited October 25, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Wars by their very nature, usually lead to a cost in blood and treasure. You asked for the differences between two particular ones. I explained. http://www.globalresearch.ca/bush-adminstration-convicted-of-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/5336860 Uh huh, a quote from Globalresearch on a 'war crimes trial' held in Indonesia at the behest of its ex-president Mahathir Mohamad and entirely controlled by him. It has also, btw, convicted Israel of genocide. Of this sterling character who formed the tribunal, Wiki has this to say: His accumulation of power came at the expense of the independence of the judiciary and the traditional powers and privileges of Malaysia's royalty. He deployed the controversial Internal Security Act to detain activists, non-mainstream religious figures, and political opponents including the Deputy Prime Minister he fired in 1998, Anwar Ibrahim. Mahathir's record of curbing civil liberties and his antagonism towards western interests and economic policy made his relationships with the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, among others, difficult. And this: Mahathir's public remarks about Jews date back as early as 1970 when he wrote in his controversial book The Malay Dilemma: "The Jews for example are not merely hook-nosed, but understand money instinctively." This quote from wiki seems apropos The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, has suggested the tribunal is a private enterprise with no legal basis and questions its legitimacy.[13] The tribunal does not have a UN mandate or recognition, no power to order arrests or impose sentences, and it is unclear that its verdicts have any but symbolic significance. Why not just admit you were wrong and the ICC has not found Bush guilty of anything? Edited October 25, 2015 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Back to topic. I see Kenney as a brooding Gordon Brown-type figure who may not be the right man to sell the Conservative message now. On PandP the other day, Ian Capstick (admittedly of the NDP persuasion) was quite adamant that Kenney should be the Interim leader rather than a contender in the contest. Potential rivals like Rempel and Raitt are already insinuating the need for a more female-friendly and upbeat message. Edited October 25, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland
On Guard for Thee Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 I kinda wish Brad Wall would change his mind about taking a run at it (of course he'd need to learn French) he seems to me like someone who could lift the party out of the overly adversarial role it has fallen into under Harper.
ToadBrother Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Back to topic. I see Kenney as a brooding Gordon Brown-type figure who may not be the right man to sell the Conservative message now. On PandP the other day, Ian Capstick (admittedly of the NDP persuasion) was quite adamant that Kenney should be the Interim leader rather than a contender in the contest. Potential rivals like Rempel and Raitt are already insinuating the need for a more female-friendly and upbeat message. Kenney's chief problem is a reputation as a more hardline social conservative, but also as one of Harper's lieutenants. If the party wants to distance themselves from the Harper years, he's going to have to sell himself as an alternative. But there's no way Kenney isn't going to try. He's been working for at least a year and a half at a leadership bid, and he views himself as a serious contender. It's his camp that is pushing for an early leadership race, because he's by and far the furthest along. He's not going to want the interim job, and why should he?
ToadBrother Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 I kinda wish Brad Wall would change his mind about taking a run at it (of course he'd need to learn French) he seems to me like someone who could lift the party out of the overly adversarial role it has fallen into under Harper. There's no tradition in Canada of Premiers becoming PMs. The only ex-Premier I can even recall running a major federal party was Tommy Douglas.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 There's no tradition in Canada of Premiers becoming PMs. The only ex-Premier I can even recall running a major federal party was Tommy Douglas. Yes, and I recently heard Wall in an interview state pretty clearly he is quite happy where he is. Lisa Raitt seems to have her head screwed on right, but again no French.
Topaz Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Kenney has Alliance connection and Nicholson was a PCer, so Nicholson at least , bring it back to a PC connection but personally, I don't like either of them. No matter who it is, Harper will probably be directing unless they tell him his time is over.
cybercoma Posted October 25, 2015 Author Report Posted October 25, 2015 I strongly disagree with this. Despite his impersonal bearing, he was a very effective leader. He held the merged PC/Alliance party together through sheer force of will. He won 3 elections. He was Prime Minister for 10 years. How could he have done all this if he were an effective leader? -k He gets credit for muzzling lunatics and keeping a united right together. He was a great party leader, but a terrible nation leader. How did he win 3 election sand be Prime Minister for 9 years? Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion, and Michael Ignatieff.
ReeferMadness Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Drivel. What was the motive for Bush and Cheney, both already immensley wealthy and powerful men? And your contention is that once these guys are immensely wealthy, they have no motivation to get more money? You've just kicked the legs out from under capitalist economic theory. They did, but the Americans won the war only to fumble the peace, unprepared and unequipped for it. Oh, they "fumbled". So, you think these guys are like the Trailer Park Boys, but with cruise missiles. Sure, they ruin economies, leave kids orphaned, bomb indiscriminately, cause death and disease by bombing critical services, but deep down they mean well. Is that your thesis? Is that your defense for their war crimes, not only during the invasion but long after? The successive US Administrations are committing war crimes and other serious violations of international law in Iraq as a matter of routine policy. Beyond the now-infamous examples of torture, rape, and murder at Abu Ghraib prison, the United States has ignored international law governing military occupation and violated the full range of Iraqis’ national and human rights—economic, social, civil and political rights. The US violated international law and caused untold damage to the people and heritage of Iraq by allowing the wholesale looting of Iraq’s public, religious, cultural, and civilian institutions and properties. The U.S. also created a climate of unbridled lawlessness by dismissing the entire army, security, and law enforcement personnel without a back-up plan to maintain public safely—predictably resulting in a sharp increase in violent crime, especially directed against women. As an Occupying Power, the U.S. is prohibited from imposing major legal, political, or economic changes in Iraq. However, the Coalition Provisional Authority has issued a number of executive orders that aim to privatize Iraq’s economy for the benefit of American corporations, with little consideration for the welfare and rights of the Iraqi people. These changes violate international law and have no binding legal effect. It might be mildly amusing to watch people contort logic to put the best face on events - if it weren't for the fact that real people have been killed and continue to die over there. Your defending war criminals and that's really quite disturbing. Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) And your contention is that once these guys are immensely wealthy, they have no motivation to get more money? You've just kicked the legs out from under capitalist economic theory. A poor loser has motivation for taking a crappy job. He might even have the motivation for robbing a bank, and running the risks that entail. What motivation do I have for taking a crappy job or robbing a bank? None. Rich men will try to get richer, sure. But at that point it's almost a game, an important game, but still a game. What do you do, how is your life changed, by making still more money when you're already a multi-multi millionaire? So sure, they have motivation to make more money, but do they have motivation to risk being executed as a traitor to do it? And it isn't even Bush and Cheney who are alleged to have made any great amount of money! The allegation is they did it on behalf of friends! Seriously! Who has friends that close that they'd be willing to murder thousands of people so their rich friends get get richer? The idea is ludicrous. Oh, they "fumbled". So, you think these guys are like the Trailer Park Boys US troops almost ran out of ammunition because that clown Rumsfeld fired generals who told him they needed to stockpile enough for contingencies. And once Iraq surrendered he had no idea what to do or how to run anything, which allowed the country to spiral down to chaos.Of course they were trailer park boys. Edited October 25, 2015 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Kenney has Alliance connection and Nicholson was a PCer, so Nicholson at least , bring it back to a PC connection but personally, I don't like either of them. No matter who it is, Harper will probably be directing unless they tell him his time is over.Nicholson is hopelessly ponderous and dull. Just compare him to Baird for a second. He was kept under wraps as much as possible since taking the job.Conservative party fans can probably give us names I have barely heard of who could get traction in a longer campaign as compromise candidates. Based on just how much they impress me on TV (not QUITE the whole story) I would go with: 1. Kenney. 2. Raitt. 3. Moore if he could be persuaded to come back. 4. Rempel. Smirky is annoying but she has talent. 5. O'Toole - a huge improvement on Fantino. Like Kenney, gives actual answers to questions in a fairly non-partisan way. I can't imagine him having too many enemies. Veteran and lawyer is a sound cv and unusual in our Parliament. 6. Ambrose. Has never impressed me at all. Edited October 25, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland
ReeferMadness Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 A poor loser has motivation for taking a crappy job. He might even have the motivation for robbing a bank, and running the risks that entail. What motivation do I have for taking a crappy job or robbing a bank? None. Rich men will try to get richer, sure. But at that point it's almost a game, an important game, but still a game. What do you do, how is your life changed, by making still more money when you're already a multi-multi millionaire? So sure, they have motivation to make more money, but do they have motivation to risk being executed as a traitor to do it? And it isn't even Bush and Cheney who are alleged to have made any great amount of money! The allegation is they did it on behalf of friends! Seriously! Who has friends that close that they'd be willing to murder thousands of people so their rich friends get get richer? The idea is ludicrous. US troops almost ran out of ammunition because that clown Rumsfeld fired generals who told him they needed to stockpile enough for contingencies. And once Iraq surrendered he had no idea what to do or how to run anything, which allowed the country to spiral down to chaos.Of course they were trailer park boys. So, I'm not sure how you are defending the numerous war crimes in Iraq. Are you using the snobbery defense (rich people are too good to do anything wrong) or the stupidity defense (Bush and Cheney were just too dumb to know what they were doing)? Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Bush, Cheney, Blair and Howard knew exactly what they were doing in Iraq...apparently picking new CPC leadership in Canada is far more difficult. Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 So, I'm not sure how you are defending the numerous war crimes in Iraq. Are you using the snobbery defense (rich people are too good to do anything wrong) or the stupidity defense (Bush and Cheney were just too dumb to know what they were doing)? I don't need to defend it since no one has ever been charged with it. And why would I give a damn anyway? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts