Ricki Bobbi Posted August 24, 2006 Report Posted August 24, 2006 The statement was made before the oil accident and most of the damage to the infrastructure in Lebanon. Oh by the way gerry any proof how this is going to hurt Harper? Do you really hate him more than you did before this last war? Those who hate the man will always hate him. What if Harper would have taken the pro-Hezbollah stance, in spite of the illegality of the group? Would you have supported him then? I didn't think so As time marches on it becomes apparent that Harper goofed on this issue.Lebanon has been completely wrecked. It's coastline is smothered with oil and it's population is existing on humanitarian aid. Thousands of homes have been destroyed. This was "measured"??? :angry: Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
jbg Posted August 24, 2006 Report Posted August 24, 2006 Oh by the way gerry any proof how this is going to hurt Harper? Do you really hate him more than you did before this last war? Those who hate the man will always hate him. Has GerryHatrick ever initiated a thread that was not about Harper? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Ricki Bobbi Posted August 24, 2006 Report Posted August 24, 2006 To be fair, I believe he has started threads about his hatred for the CPC in general! Has GerryHatrick ever initiated a thread that was not about Harper? Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
WestViking Posted August 24, 2006 Report Posted August 24, 2006 As time marches on it becomes apparent that Harper goofed on this issue.Lebanon has been completely wrecked. It's coastline is smothered with oil and it's population is existing on humanitarian aid. Thousands of homes have been destroyed. This was "measured"??? :angry: Parts of southern Lebanon have been heavily damaged. That is what happens when rogue armies use populated areas to mount attacks from. The devastation was both predictable and planned by Hezbollah in the event that anyone shot back at them. Hezbollah has been illegally shelling Israel for years. The UN should have stepped in and stopped them. The results would have been similar; buildings and infrastructure destroyed, civilians injured and killed, and the Lebanese weeping over the destruction. The United Nations has proven to be good at passing resolutions and useless at enforcing the resolutions it makes. Israel stepped up and did what the UN lacked the moral courage and principles to do. If stopping terrorists from terrorizing a sovereign neighbour nation bothers you, you are an enemy of civilization and lawful societies. Quote Hall Monitor of the Shadowy Group
newbie Posted August 24, 2006 Report Posted August 24, 2006 He is decisive, which is a good thing...provide the right decision was made. In this case I think his "measured response" comments were decisive but wrong. He should not have chosen a team...especially when one side is a terrorist group and the other is slaughtering innocents to get at the terrorists. IMO, the right decision would have been to condemn the violence on both sides. THIS ( above) was the right decision. Quote
jbg Posted August 24, 2006 Report Posted August 24, 2006 He is decisive, which is a good thing...provide the right decision was made. In this case I think his "measured response" comments were decisive but wrong. He should not have chosen a team...especially when one side is a terrorist group and the other is slaughtering innocents to get at the terrorists. IMO, the right decision would have been to condemn the violence on both sides. THIS ( above) was the right decision. WRONG!!! The violence by a recognized country clingling to survival is one thing; flinging rockets at random into populated areas is another. That is the definition of moral equivalence. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
scribblet Posted August 24, 2006 Report Posted August 24, 2006 Thank goodness we have a PM who is willing to stand up for what is right. What exactly should a 'measured response' be when Hezbollah's prescription for peace is pretty simple: Kill all the Jews. By its leaders' own admission, Hezbollah is not seeking a lasting solution in the Middle East; it is seeking a Final Solution. It is the liberals and NDPers whining about our loss of neutrality that is reckless and, indeed, shameful. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
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.