Jump to content

Justin Trudeau the Worst PM Since Pierre Trudeau?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Argus said:

The mob of progressive leftists always prefers a style over substance argument. We should refuse to sell anything to such regimes because we disapprove of them!  Which accomplishes exactly what? They shrug and buy their helicopters or tanks or aircraft from the Russians or Chinese, both of whom will be delighted to make the money and gain influence. Ah, but we'll be left with our nobility! Having fully expressed our disdain for them! 

Of course, we'll continue to let China sell tens or hundreds of billions worth of stuff here because, well, you know, it's cheap.

And this comes from a Rightist. Me. No it is not because we disapprove of them but because these brutal regimes use the technology, business, arms or whatever else we provide them to repress/murder/torture their own people or fight a war against other people. Do you wish blood money?. Do Canadians wish to do their groceries with the blood of all the defenseless repressed people of the world. No, we are not Russians or Chinese who are cold blooded heartless unelected governments. We are Canadians and very proud of it too and what distinguishes us is that we say loud and clear to our elected government NOT to sell arms to tyrannical regimes especially those in Middle East. Help their people to overthrow the tyrany and thugs in power by putting political and economic pressure on the regimes.

Break ties with these repressive regimes and do not trade with the devil. We do not wish to be on the same level as murderous regimes in China and Russia who support or trade with their own kind, the more murderous regimes. Do not create Frankeshtain Monsters. Once they are done with murdering their own people they turn their guns against you (the West) because this is where they see their demise will be coming (democracy) and hence this is where they hate the most. So even if you are okay with blood money then think of this.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Don't forget Obama ramped up extra-judicial killings of Muslims, kept Guantanamo open and increased the states ability to spy on everyone.

Not closing Guantánamo was certainly one of his failings. He did start out by signing an executive order on his second day in office to close it within a year, but then began the long fight with many in the Pentagon, foreign governments, and other politicians. He did manage to reduce its population by over 90%, but it seems there is still a strong desire to create a loophole in the US Constitution by the lawbreakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

And this comes from a Rightist. Me. No it is not because we disapprove of them but because these brutal regimes use the technology, business, arms or whatever else we provide them to repress/murder/torture their own people or fight a war against other people. Do you wish blood money?.

The Filipinos aren't using combat helicopters to oppress their people. They're democratically elected, and the only people they're fighting with combat helicopters are various insurgencies, including that of Muslim extremists. The Saudis don't need armored vehicles to oppress their people, either. They're using them in Yemen. The only real threat to them internally are from groups which think they're too liberal!

Quote

Break ties with these repressive regimes and do not trade with the devil. 

So you think we should break ties and not trade with the Chinese and Russians, and, presumably, all Arab regimes. How do we replace the Arab oil, btw? We have no way of using our own since the progressives refuse to allow a pipeline east. Do we get oil from Venezuela? Whoops, nope, they're an oppressive regime too. Where do we buy our toaster, TVs and computers? Do we import them from uh... who exactly? Vietnam? Oh, and a lot of our industry uses raw resources from Africa. That's out. Almost all African countries are run by undemocratic 'regimes'. And of course, we can't sell raw resources to China either. I think your plan would cost us millions of jobs. 

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Argus said:

The Filipinos aren't using combat helicopters to oppress their people. They're democratically elected, and the only people they're fighting with combat helicopters are various insurgencies, including that of Muslim extremists. The Saudis don't need armored vehicles to oppress their people, either. They're using them in Yemen. The only real threat to them internally are from groups which think they're too liberal!

So you think we should break ties and not trade with the Chinese and Russians, and, presumably, all Arab regimes. How do we replace the Arab oil, btw? We have no way of using our own since the progressives refuse to allow a pipeline east. Do we get oil from Venezuela? Whoops, nope, they're an oppressive regime too. Where do we buy our toaster, TVs and computers? Do we import them from uh... who exactly? Vietnam? Oh, and a lot of our industry uses raw resources from Africa. That's out. Almost all African countries are run by undemocratic 'regimes'. And of course, we can't sell raw resources to China either. I think your plan would cost us millions of jobs. 

I think it was clear that I wasn't referring to Philippines when I spoke of murderous regimes who murder, torture, rape and intimidate their own majority people. 

Saudi Arabia as stinky as it is, their nation is not advanced enough to rise up and seek freedom however, they are currently engaged in massacre of defenseless civilians in Yemen and blockage of this very poor nation and the cause of mass starvation in that region. We can trade oil but we must not sell arms to Stink Arabia.

The Chinese and Russians are not currently suppressing their own people (not since 1989) and don't need our arms anyways. They build their own and export them to syria to beef up murderous Bashir Asshole regime in Syria or in case of Russia directly involved in mass murder of defenseless Syrian people. But my emphasis was on SELLING ARMS rather than oil.

Canada is an exporter of raw resources. I don't believe we need to rely on Africa for that,

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I think it was clear that I wasn't referring to Philippines when I spoke of murderous regimes who murder, torture, rape and intimidate their own majority people. Who jailed activists, journalists, human right defenders, lawyers, feminists, students, religious and racial minorities, freedom seekers, the entire population by sending their well paid thugs to suppress any opposition. 

The only thing the Philippines is doing that I'm aware of is killing anyone suspected of involvement in illegal narcotics. Not something I approve of but not something they're going to use combat helicopters for either. And again, I'll point out they are democratically elected and have a free press, even if their president is an ignorant, murderous lunatic. The polls seem to indicate he is still hugely popular and would easily win re-election. Which doesn't say anything good about the sophistication of the Filipino public.

 

Quote

Saudi Arabia as stinky as it is, their nation is not advanced enough to rise up and seek freedom however, they are currently engaged in massacre of defenseless civilians in Yemen and blockage of this very poor nation and the cause of mass starvation in that region. We can trade oil but we must not sell arms to Stink Arabia.

So they'll buy it elsewhere. How does that affect anything?

Quote

The Chinese and Russian are not currently suppressing their own people (not since 1989) and don't need our arms anyways. They build their own and export them to syria to beef up murderous Bashir Asshole regime in Syria or in case of Russia directly involved in mass murder of defenseless Syrian people. But my emphasis was NOT TO SELL ARMS rather than oil.

The Chinese and Russians are most certainly suppressing and oppressing their own people,  and jailing and killing anyone in a position to challenge them. The Philippines are infinitely more free than either of those countries. And what moral difference is there between selling them arms and instead buying lots of stuff so they can use that money to buy arms or produce their own?

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument falls flat when one considers Canada's complicity in arms sales to the United States, which has bombed and invaded more countries than the Russians or Chinese.   I never understood this line of reasoning....hell...Canada even made BILLIONS in war materials sales while claiming to be "neutral" during the Vietnam War.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals know they have far more to lose in the way of votes and jobs than any impact from triggered lefties.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Argus said:

The only thing the Philippines is doing that I'm aware of is killing anyone suspected of involvement in illegal narcotics. Not something I approve of but not something they're going to use combat helicopters for either. And again, I'll point out they are democratically elected and have a free press, even if their president is an ignorant, murderous lunatic. The polls seem to indicate he is still hugely popular and would easily win re-election. Which doesn't say anything good about the sophistication of the Filipino public.

 

So they'll buy it elsewhere. How does that affect anything?

The Chinese and Russians are most certainly suppressing and oppressing their own people,  and jailing and killing anyone in a position to challenge them. The Philippines are infinitely more free than either of those countries. And what moral difference is there between selling them arms and instead buying lots of stuff so they can use that money to buy arms or produce their own?

Read my post again. I said I was not referring to Philippines.

Let them  buy somewhere else and then someone else would have the blood money on their hands not Canadians. 

Selling arms to repressive regimes is like arming a known murderer to commit more murders. Or freeing a known rapist to do more acts of evil.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Read my post again. I said I was not referring to Philippines.

You realize this conversation is because of the helicopters we're selling the Philippines, right?

Quote

Selling arms to repressive regimes is like arming a known murderer to commit more murders. Or freeing a known rapist to do more acts of evil.

So we shouldn't sell them arms but it's okay to pay them billions and billions for their stuff so they can buy arms somewhere else or build them themselves?

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Argus said:

You realize this conversation is because of the helicopters we're selling the Philippines, right?

So we shouldn't sell them arms but it's okay to pay them billions and billions for their stuff so they can buy arms somewhere else or build them themselves?

No, I thought it was about selling arms to Stink Arabia and Middle East in general. I don't see issues in selling arms to Philippines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Not closing Guantánamo was certainly one of his failings. He did start out by signing an executive order on his second day in office to close it within a year, but then began the long fight with many in the Pentagon, foreign governments, and other politicians. He did manage to reduce its population by over 90%, but it seems there is still a strong desire to create a loophole in the US Constitution by the lawbreakers.

What would the U.S. do with Al Qaeda or ISIS terrorists or other terrorists they capture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Omni said:

Prosecute them in a REAL court maybe?

That doesn't work because regular justice systems are not set up or capable of dealing with foreign terrorists, which often involve secret informants that cannot be exposed as regular courts require.  Also the laws are not set up to deal with terrorists fighting in other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That doesn't work because regular justice systems are not set up or capable of dealing with foreign terrorists, which often involve secret informants that cannot be exposed as regular courts require.  Also the laws are not set up to deal with terrorists fighting in other countries.

Gitmo was clearly illegal under US law, hence where it was located. Secret informants testimony can very well be allowed in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

Gitmo was clearly illegal under US law, hence where it was located. Secret informants testimony can very well be allowed in court.

Maybe, but I still don't believe the legal system is set up to deal with terrorists that have been captured in other countries in the war on terrorism.  Because of the stringent requirements for evidence, witnesses it may be very difficult to convict a terrorist in a civilian court.  It could result in the world's most dangerous terrorists walking free.  Many of the informants may be foreigners located in other countries who may not be willing to give information if they or their families are going to be put at risk.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Maybe, but I still don't believe the legal system is set up to deal with terrorists that have been captured in other countries in the war on terrorism.  Because of the stringent requirements for evidence, witnesses it may be very difficult to convict a terrorist in a civilian court.  It could result in the world's most dangerous terrorists walking free.

You mean like Omar Khadr?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

No.   Obama released a number of terrorists from Gitmo.  Some of them went on to get involved in terrorism again.

Point being is that the US prides itself on honoring the rule of law. Gitmo did much to undermine that concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

Point being is that the US prides itself on honoring the rule of law. Gitmo did much to undermine that concept.

That's your opinion.   The prisoners are classified as enemy combatants, captured as a result of a war.  They are not considered as civilian or domestic criminals.  The U.S. is doing what it has to do in this period of history to defend itself from international terrorism.

Edited by blackbird
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's your opinion.   The prisoners are classified as enemy combatants, captured as a result of a war.  They are not considered as civilian or domestic criminals.  The U.S. is doing what it has to do in this period of history to defend itself from international terrorism.

In so doing they are in violation of various Geneva Conventions. And while we're at it, perhaps the US should refrain from engaging in international terrorism. Bombing the shit out of Iraq is one example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

In so doing they are in violation of various Geneva Conventions. And while we're at it, perhaps the US should refrain from engaging in international terrorism. Bombing the shit out of Iraq is one example.

You don't understand how the world works.  Most of the war in Iraq was against the thousands of Al Qaeda supporters and insurgents who went there specifically to fight against the U.S. in a holy war.  The U.S. is simply defending itself.  Obviously you can't or don't want to understand that.  So I will leave it at that as I don't think we are going to get anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You don't understand how the world works.  Most of the war in Iraq was against the thousands of Al Qaeda supporters and insurgents who went there specifically to fight against the U.S. in a holy war.  The U.S. is simply defending itself.  Obviously you can't or don't want to understand that.  So I will leave it at that as I don't think we are going to get anywhere.

No it wasn't. And I probably know a tad better than you because I was there. Mostly about oil my boy. It was not Iraq who hit the twin towers.

Anyway we have drifted off topic and we can't do that otherwise a spanking ensues.

Edited by Omni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justin Trudeau is hiding out in the U.S. to escape bad news back home...plus it is warmer in California:

  • Canada lost 88,000 jobs last month
  • BC and Alberta have declared an all out pipeline war
  • President Duerte now wants to cancel the $233 million Bell helicopter contract
  • Peoplekind can't save NAFTA....it will be mostly men if it happens at all
  • International investment not impressed by Trudeau's sunny ways

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-employment-january-1.4527905

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

No, I thought it was about selling arms to Stink Arabia and Middle East in general. I don't see issues in selling arms to Philippines.

No, we're no longer selling helicopters to the Philippines. They cancelled the deal after Trudeau ordered a review and will buy helicopters elsewhere. So much for Canada's great moral impact in refusing to sell arms to countries that don't have pristine human rights records. I'm sure AugustaWestland will have a sales guy already on a plane headed there from Italy. God knows the Europeans will sell arms to anyone. He'll likely be in line behind the Russians, though, who will make a sweeter deal (offer more of a bribe) to get in tighter with Duturte and exert more influence.

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/philippine-president-cancels-order-of-16-canadian-helicopters-and-u-s-arms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The peoplekind went viral and made a laughing stock out of the country. The whole world is having a big laugh on us. And then we have a trade war looming between alberta and BC and where is trudeau , visiting american universities and then off for a few weeks to tour india with his wife at our expense. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...