betsy Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 The only option is to either have the Conservative or the NDP as the government. Liberals will be too busy facing inquiries and investigations that they will not be able to focus on the policies and needs of the nation. The Liberals will definitely be focused on saving their own skin. Conservatives and NDP: two alternative views....although Layton suddenly started sounding like Harper with busting crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiti Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 That is horsefeathers. This latest Options Canada is not a scandal. Options Canada was already audited 10 years ago by the Auditor General and thee books have been balanced. Harper can try all he likes and he will not prove one of his allegations. And I hate that sneer on his face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 This latest Options Canada is not a scandal. Oh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 That is horsefeathers. This latest Options Canada is not a scandal. Options Canada was already audited 10 years ago by the Auditor General and thee books have been balanced. Harper can try all he likes and he will not prove one of his allegations. And I hate that sneer on his face. LOL Horsefeathers yourself, your hate for Harper transcends any reasonable discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 That is horsefeathers. This latest Options Canada is not a scandal. Options Canada was already audited 10 years ago by the Auditor General and thee books have been balanced. Harper can try all he likes and he will not prove one of his allegations. And I hate that sneer on his face. LOL Horsefeathers yourself, your hate for Harper transcends any reasonable discussion. The Liberals are not used to having competition. They govern like benevolent dictators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakunin Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 That is horsefeathers. This latest Options Canada is not a scandal. Options Canada was already audited 10 years ago by the Auditor General and thee books have been balanced. Harper can try all he likes and he will not prove one of his allegations. And I hate that sneer on his face. the book didn't balance, the Auditor General had to give up because he didn't had enough documents. A well known ex-journalist form the french CBC found documents about Option canada and made a book that will come out thursday and promised to give back the documents to the auditor general, i don't know what will be revealed but the GRC wants to reopen the case and the quebec wing liberals looks terrified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 bakunin, I think I heard that the publisher is moving up the release day for the book to Monday. The Liberals are losing this election by a thousand paper cuts. Options Canada is just another one. Only 15 more days till the election. What can they do to turn it around? the book didn't balance, the Auditor General had to give up because he didn't had enough documents. A well known ex-journalist form the french CBC found documents about Option canada and made a book that will come out thursday and promised to give back the documents to the auditor general, i don't know what will be revealed but the GRC wants to reopen the case and the quebec wing liberals looks terrified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 What can they do to turn it around? Remind everyone what the National Citizen's Coalition stands for and that Harper was the president. Oh, and use that four-letter word "Iraq" a few times. That should do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 *IF* that strategy would work. Why aren't they using it? Remind everyone what the National Citizen's Coalition stands for and that Harper was the president. Oh, and use that four-letter word "Iraq" a few times. That should do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 What can they do to turn it around? Remind everyone what the National Citizen's Coalition stands for and that Harper was the president. Oh, and use that four-letter word "Iraq" a few times. That should do it. Got to admit, I was in favor of involvement in Iraq. It had nothing to do with Bush though, I was looking to Tony Blair for guidance. I guess he's a neocon to. After WMD was shown to be a fairy tale, I felt like I'd been had. I wonder how many others felt this way and could one of them be Harper? If there are a lot, saying "Iraq" a few times, probably won't do it. Who came up with the term neocon anyway? Couldn't have been a Liberal could it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 No, I think newoconservativism was defined by neoconservatives. Blair isn't one (going into Iraq doesn't automatically make him one--didn't you read the definition?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 No, I think newoconservativism was defined by neoconservatives. Blair isn't one (going into Iraq doesn't automatically make him one--didn't you read the definition?). Well seeing as we don't really know, I guess it is just another label. Blair did go to Iraq and he is not a neocon, so what does that make him? Do you think he should be out of office as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 You clearly don't have a clue what a neocon is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Typicl Martinite arrogance. That, my friend, is why you are losing this election. Do I detect a hint of anger in your posts? Frustration? Inability to grasp why you are losing this election? You clearly don't have a clue what a neocon is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Again, I'm not a Liberal (and we really need to consolidate this discussion under one thread). My point was, Wilber seems to think that, just because neocons invaded Iraq, that is what defines them. I'm not bitter, just stating facts again. GO NDP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Again, I'm not a Liberal (and we really need to consolidate this discussion under one thread). My point was, Wilber seems to think that, just because neocons invaded Iraq, that is what defines them. I'm not bitter, just stating facts again. GO NDP. I asked you if you thought Blair should be out of office because he went into Iraq. I didn't bring up Iraq, or connect the invasion to your so called neocons, you did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 I was looking to Tony Blair for guidance. I guess he's a neocon to. That's what I was basing my post on. But he won the election fair and square since the illegal invasion, so I guess he has every right to stay in power. Just like Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 I was looking to Tony Blair for guidance. I guess he's a neocon to. That's what I was basing my post on. But he won the election fair and square since the illegal invasion, so I guess he has every right to stay in power. Just like Bush. How was the invasion illegal (N.B. I didn't support it initially but we must support the American and British troops, as well as the Canadian troops we "didn't" send there) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 They invaded another country to steal their oil against the wishes of the UN security counsel. They also misrepresented their reasons for going. Under international law, this is considered illegal. Even the UN Secretary General said so. I feel bad for the troops there, but I don't support their cause of liberating Iraq's oil fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 I feel bad for the troops there, but I don't support their cause of liberating Iraq's oil fields. America bad. Bad bad bad. And it isn't the first time they have done this... oh no not even close. Who can forget or forgive the war criminal Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was complicit in the American invasion of Europe in World War II? America had stayed out of the Teutonic adjustment to European borders until 1941, when it could no longer resist the siren call of Eurpean oilfields and attacked this defenseless continent. FDR conveniently 'died' in office to avoid conviction at Nuremberg for his warcrimes. Let's see is Bush, both of 'em, can dodge justice in our times! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 They invaded another country to steal their oil against the wishes of the UN security counsel. They also misrepresented their reasons for going. Under international law, this is considered illegal. Even the UN Secretary General said so. I feel bad for the troops there, but I don't support their cause of liberating Iraq's oil fields. Proof of this BM? You are merely restating the left's position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Honest Politician Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 The only "centrifuge" (sp) for enriching uranium they "found" was was brought in by an Iraqi Scientist who had dug it up from under his rose bushes where it had been buried for over 10 years. So much for a nuclear weapons program. The only WMD's found in Iraq are the ones the Americans brought with them. The evidence presented to the UN was blatently false. Did you ever hear about the Russian pictures of the Kuwait/Saudi Arabia border before the first Gulf War? Apparently the 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1500 Iraqi tanks weren't in the Russian photos of the same area. SEPTEMBER: The Pentagon says that 250,000 Iraqi troops with 1500 tanks are massed on the Saudi border. The photos are never made public.Soviet satellite imagery taken that day shows no troops near the border. (see the photos) 1991 Journalist Jean Heller learns about the Soviet satellite imagery and presents them to Dick Cheney's office at the Pentagon. They ignore the story. So this war is the Second time they lied, to serve their own international interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 I was not an Iraqi war supporter. However, now that the troops are there we must hope for the best. Harper and Martin, the two realistic people to next become our PM, were Iraqi war sponsors, as was PM Chretien. Chretien had interests in Iraqi oil as Montgomery Burns has factually reported in the past. He also had a great hatred for the U.S. and Western Canada, especially Alberta. His prime ministerial life was ending soon too. Thus, Chretien officially did not support the war. Yet, Canadian troops got sent there anyway. When the U.S. went in, Chretien knew Saddam oil was gone for sure. Thus, I am sure he wanted to be sure he would have a stake in Iraqi oil. His great PR job made sure Liberal Party communists like Carolyn Parrish shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Honest Politician Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that Canadian military personnel serving on exchange with the U.S. and the U.K. in Iraq have become members of the exchange country's military. If that is true, then the Canadian troops in Iraq operate under the host country's rules of engagement. The government cannot have it both ways. Do Canadian troops serving with the U.S. and the British in Iraq serve under special rules made up by the government, or do they serve under the same rules as the units they are attached to? Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a very tired question covering material I have gone over a dozen times. These exchange agreements have been in place for decades. Before we send such a person, we verify that the actions are in accordance with the directions of the Canadian military and the Canadian government. However, once the person is in the field, he or she does not write back to Ottawa for orders on day to day matters but nevertheless, remains subject to Canadian law. Link So the troops we "sent" were already on an exchange program with the USA and the UK? I would hardly call that sending troops. Or do you have evidence of other troop deployments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 That is a very good way, by that Liberal MP, of saying: "We went in without going in." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.