waldo Posted January 19, 2016 Report Posted January 19, 2016 Geez waldo you were a little more up set about losing the eat on the security council, and now this is nothing. LOL ya ya - you misconstrue an opportunity to showcase the rejection of Canada's bid to win a seat at the United Nations Security Council as being "upset". I'm sure any references I might have made were wholly partisan and targeted towards how Harper's government presented Canada to the world (and the UN voting contingent). But uhhh, are you really equating a "meeting invite" to a UN Security Council seat? Really? . Quote
PIK Posted January 19, 2016 Author Report Posted January 19, 2016 Yes I am waldo, because these are a lot more important than UN group meetings. What has the UN done for the world in past yrs,? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
DogOnPorch Posted January 19, 2016 Report Posted January 19, 2016 Yes I am waldo, because these are a lot more important than UN group meetings. What has the UN done for the world in past yrs,? Made antisemitism an art form, for one. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Argus Posted January 19, 2016 Report Posted January 19, 2016 I'm sure any references I might have made were wholly partisan I think most of us would agree, on this or any other subject. Quote "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
waldo Posted January 19, 2016 Report Posted January 19, 2016 I think most of us would agree, on this or any other subject. cause, like... uhhhh, you're clearly not partisan in your views and party positioning, are you? Quote
Argus Posted January 19, 2016 Report Posted January 19, 2016 cause, like... uhhhh, you're clearly not partisan in your views and party positioning, are you? Nope. Quote "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
Derek 2.0 Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) where's the policy, as you describe, "muddled"? In its envisioned scope and implementation..........in other words, no details have been forthcoming on what we will be doing and when. By the by, Al Qaeda (ties) is not ISIS... does that reduce your declared snub by a 6th (since you're taking an account of attacks)? I never made the distinction (on purpose), citing Islamic terrorists.........which the three previous Governments since 9/11 all had detailed (and public) plans to contend with radical Islam, including combat missions initiated by the three previous Prime Ministers.......... Edited January 20, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote
waldo Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) In its envisioned scope and implementation..........in other words, no details have been forthcoming on what we will be doing and when. your "muddled policy" assessment is because of "no details"? The high-level pledges remain - status quo in regards refueling and reconnaissance, end to participation in bombing campaign (but for now, status quo remains), increase in training resources (until increase, status quo remains), increase in humanitarian support. Just what kind of details are you looking for - that could be public domain... that would reduce your partisan flavoured "muddled" assessment? status quo until plans/details finalized... 30 days as government & 1 eight day Parliamentary session... and you want it now? Weeks ago? Oh, you wanted it on the campaign trail, hey! Edited January 21, 2016 by waldo Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 your "muddled policy" assessment is because of "no details"? The high-level pledges remain - status quo in regards refueling and reconnaissance, Has that officially been announced as part of the Government's plan going forward? end to participation in bombing campaign (but for now, status quo remains) When? increase in training resources (until increase, status quo remains), How much of an increase and when? increase in humanitarian support. How much and when? Just what kind of details are you looking for - that could be public domain... that would reduce your partisan flavoured "muddled" assessment? There is no reason that any of the above proposals can't be made public........until such a time, as confirmed by Lloyd Axworthy, this Government's planned approach is both muddled and unclear. status quo until plans/details finalized... 30 days as government & 1 eight day Parliamentary session... and you want it now? Weeks ago? Oh, you wanted it on the campaign trail, hey! When did Trudeau and his cabinet get sworn in? I don't know how you come up with 30 days as Government..... Quote
waldo Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 get a grip! Whatever was being done... is still being done to the same level. The change pledges are in terms of stopping participation in the bombing campaign and increasing training/humanitarian related engagements. Other than giving you a basis to chirp, there is nothing that rises to the level of your declared "muddled". The date for stopping bombing appears to have shifted in line with an "orderly" change aligned to the original March time frame committed to by Harper... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.