Al Gore attacks new, 'ultra-conservative' Canadian PM

[Wilber]

Your right about the Taliban falling but not everything like you say needs to be led by the United States that is very cynical. Canada backed by a British force and other small countries that are currently in Afganistan could have went their alone. Although most likely like you said would never have happaned because the whole reason this started was because of September 11th.

How? We need US air support because we can't get our own there and if we could we don't have the ability to support in on our own. Our top brass has said so. We need US helicopters to move our troops around when they get there because we don't have any. We have no heavy lift capability of our own. We hire private shipping and charter Antonov aircraft from Russia and Ukraine to move our equipment. The fact is Canada is not really capable of maintaining an effective combat force on the ground anywhere without the support of the US.

No other nation has the capability to do what the US can with its B52's and B1B's. They were a major factor in destroying organized resistance from the Taliban. If that campaign had to be fought on the ground only with no strategic bombing, air support or heavy lift helicopters that only the US could provide, it would have been far more costly than it has been so far.

The Taliban government may have been overthrown but they are still there and still fighting.

Of course the reason we are there is September 11th. The US was attacked by a group that was based in Afghanistan and supported by its government. The NATO charter says an attack against one is an attack against all. If we can't support that premise we have no business belonging to NATO.

[geoffrey]

Canada would never head an offensive operation anywhere in the world. It's political suicide in Canada to liberate anyone or intervene anywhere.

It's political suicide because it's such a impractical pipe dream. Intervention in local conflicts invariably involves choosing sides, which brings the risk of choosing the wrong one (I think Yugolsavia is a good example of that). Intervention against opressive regimes is even dicer because there's absolutely no guarantees the end result will be an improvement (see Iraq).

BD come on now. So we should never get involved in any local conflict in fear of picking the wrong side?

The fear of failure is a rather lame excuse for not attempting to aid people in living possibly a improved life.

[Teddy Ballgame]

- If one examines carefully the most recent platforms of the US Democratic Party (for the 2004 election) and the Canadian Conservative Party (for the 2006 election), there is little doubt that our CPC would be at least slightly leftward of the Democrats.

- Our CPC explicitly endorses a one tier socialized health care system and implicitly endorses much more generous welfare and unemployment and public pension benefits, a significantly higher level of taxation and greater level of government intervention in the economy, many more and much better paid, perked and pensioned public servants, and a much less robust defence capablity and aggressive military posture than Americans would ever let the Democrats try to foist on them. And this doesn't even take into consideration such hot button issues as same sex marriage, decriminaliztion of marijuana, the abolition of capital punishment, official multi-culturalism, the world's most permissive immigration and refugee systems, etc., etc.

- Hopefully, some of these more extreme left wing approaches and concomittant harebrained policies will be gradually modified and moderated over time after the CPC forms a majority government about two years from now and as it succeeds in forging what will amount to a new progressive conservative style co-alition to replace the now financially, morally and politically bankrupt Liberal co-alition.

- But for now, the CPC is officially to the left of both US parties, even Hysterical Harridan Hillary's misguided Democrats.

[Black Dog]

BD come on now. So we should never get involved in any local conflict in fear of picking the wrong side?

That's but one concern, but an important one. One need only look at the legacy of the Cold War (which gave us, either directly or indirectly, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and teh Islamic regimi in Tehran) to show how quickly today's friends become tomorrow's foes.

The fear of failure is a rather lame excuse for not attempting to aid people in living possibly a improved life.

Ah, but I'm not talking abouty the fear of failure: I'm talking about the inevitability of failure.

[geoffrey]

BD come on now. So we should never get involved in any local conflict in fear of picking the wrong side?

That's but one concern, but an important one. One need only look at the legacy of the Cold War (which gave us, either directly or indirectly, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and teh Islamic regimi in Tehran) to show how quickly today's friends become tomorrow's foes.

I don't disagree with you on those examples.

The fear of failure is a rather lame excuse for not attempting to aid people in living possibly a improved life.

Ah, but I'm not talking abouty the fear of failure: I'm talking about the inevitability of failure.

But leaving them status quo is also a failure on our part is it not? Was our lack of response to Rwanda a failure? Absolutely. Is our current lack of response to Darfur a failure? Absolutely.

I would rather try and fail then just let most of the world kill each other while we sit on our high horse.

[tml12]

Teddy Ballgame,

As a conservative I have some issues with your argument:

"If one examines carefully the most recent platforms of the US Democratic Party (for the 2004 election) and the Canadian Conservative Party (for the 2006 election), there is little doubt that our CPC would be at least slightly leftward of the Democrats."

That's just it...the PLATFORM! Because universal health care is one of the myths of Canada (it hasn't been universal in a very long time...we have tons of private health care all over the place) the CPC must "pledge" to keep it "universal." In reality, most Conservatives understand the reality of the situation and will hopefully allow more privatization and recognize the beneifts of a two-tier system.

As for the Dems, most support more government administration in U.S. health care. Hillary even supports complete universal health care (remember she led the crusade in 1994).

"Our CPC explicitly endorses a one tier socialized health care system and implicitly endorses much more generous welfare and unemployment and public pension benefits, a significantly higher level of taxation and greater level of government intervention in the economy, many more and much better paid, perked and pensioned public servants, and a much less robust defence capablity and aggressive military posture than Americans would ever let the Democrats try to foist on them. And this doesn't even take into consideration such hot button issues as same sex marriage, decriminaliztion of marijuana, the abolition of capital punishment, official multi-culturalism, the world's most permissive immigration and refugee systems, etc., etc."

The CPC had to go NDP light to suck up to lazy Ontario government sycophants. No way in hell a majority CPC supports this stuff. As for the Dems, a Democrat President and a Democrat government are going to be way left of the CPC. Most Dems support decriminalization of marijuana, the CPC doesn't. The CPC is slightly left of the mainstream U.S. Republican Party but way right of the Dems.

You're confusing the CPC backed up by the NDP/Liberals in a minority situation with the true right-wing Reform elements of the party.

"Hopefully, some of these more extreme left wing approaches and concomittant harebrained policies will be gradually modified and moderated over time after the CPC forms a majority government about two years from now and as it succeeds in forging what will amount to a new progressive conservative style co-alition to replace the now financially, morally and politically bankrupt Liberal co-alition."

We need a real right-wing party, not a PC Liberal/NDP lite party. If we've got to run left of the Dems to govern like the Republicans, then so be it. Seems we've fooled a bit of people.

"But for now, the CPC is officially to the left of both US parties, even Hysterical Harridan Hillary's misguided Democrats."

Platform-wise, yes. In reality, no.

[Bryan]

- If one examines carefully the most recent platforms of the US Democratic Party (for the 2004 election) and the Canadian Conservative Party (for the 2006 election), there is little doubt that our CPC would be at least slightly leftward of the Democrats.

- Our CPC explicitly endorses a one tier socialized health care system and implicitly endorses much more generous welfare and unemployment and public pension benefits, a significantly higher level of taxation and greater level of government intervention in the economy, many more and much better paid, perked and pensioned public servants, and a much less robust defence capablity and aggressive military posture than Americans would ever let the Democrats try to foist on them. And this doesn't even take into consideration such hot button issues as same sex marriage, decriminaliztion of marijuana, the abolition of capital punishment, official multi-culturalism, the world's most permissive immigration and refugee systems, etc., etc.

- Hopefully, some of these more extreme left wing approaches and concomittant harebrained policies will be gradually modified and moderated over time after the CPC forms a majority government about two years from now and as it succeeds in forging what will amount to a new progressive conservative style co-alition to replace the now financially, morally and politically bankrupt Liberal co-alition.

- But for now, the CPC is officially to the left of both US parties, even Hysterical Harridan Hillary's misguided Democrats.

Absolutely correct on all counts, although I would phrase it slightly differently.

The way I see it, the US has no credible left-wing choice. The Republicans are extreme-right, and the Democrats are centre-right. That's what makes the CPC (which is still slightly to the right) SEEM more left. They are still a right leaning party, just not as far right as the two US choices.

[scribblet]

- Hopefully, some of these more extreme left wing approaches and concomittant harebrained policies will be gradually modified and moderated over time after the CPC forms a majority government about two years from now and as it succeeds in forging what will amount to a new progressive conservative style co-alition to replace the now financially, morally and politically bankrupt Liberal co-alition.

- But for now, the CPC is officially to the left of both US parties, even Hysterical Harridan Hillary's misguided Democrats.

Absolutely correct on all counts, although I would phrase it slightly differently.

The way I see it, the US has no credible left-wing choice. The Republicans are extreme-right, and the Democrats are centre-right. That's what makes the CPC (which is still slightly to the right) SEEM more left. They are still a right leaning party, just not as far right as the two US choices.

I agree, t really makes me laugh when people try to compare Harper with Bush and the Republicans.