[Proculation]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Again, nothing on why Iggy is wrong? Instead of constant partisan whining, let's see you bring something objective to the table.

Seriously, you can be a liberal partisan (I've voted liberal 2 times on 4 so i'm not a partisan conservative). But, Iggy is against a minority government and we do not see him ! When he talks, it's like we are hearing a robot. He is too cartesian and he is not able to connect with the people.

You have to say that he is not a Chretien or a Trudeau. I'm sure he is a good professor but as a politician he is terrible.

[Public_Domain]

[Mustang1]

Curtman Curtman:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Again, nothing on why Iggy is wrong? Instead of constant partisan whining, let's see you bring something objective to the table.

When did I say "nothing on Iggy is wrong"? I'm still waiting for the Messiah same as everyone.

That wasn't directed to you - please learn how to navigate a basic forum thread.

[Mustang1]

Proculation Proculation:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Again, nothing on why Iggy is wrong? Instead of constant partisan whining, let's see you bring something objective to the table.

Seriously, you can be a liberal partisan (I've voted liberal 2 times on 4 so i'm not a partisan conservative). But, Iggy is against a minority government and we do not see him ! When he talks, it's like we are hearing a robot. He is too cartesian and he is not able to connect with the people.

You have to say that he is not a Chretien or a Trudeau. I'm sure he is a good professor but as a politician he is terrible.

I'm not commenting on Iggy the politician, but Iggy the analyst. He made an interesting commentary on Canada's current international image and foreign policy direction. I asked how he is wrong on this point - that's the issue of the thread. And i'm still waiting on actual critique on the article and Iggy's viewpoint.

[Thanos]

This whole thread is typical Liberal boilerplate. If we aren't invited to all the good cocktail parties at the UN it means that somehow our image is damaged. Whatever. Better to be on the outside looking in at the UN than to be an insider that's sold it's soul to the worst collection of dictators and terrorist lunatics that's ever been assembled. If we're no longer popular with assholes like that then it only means that we're doing something right for a change.

[EyeBrock]

Nice Khar!

I tried to get rid of the 'C' too but I think it has to be lasered off.....

[Khar]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

Hm. Did Canada really have any "street cred" when the Liberal were last in power, or is that a wistful look through the rose-colored shades?

I think we just changed the seating a bit on the room of people who like and dislike us with the Bloody Tories vs the Sodding Liberals. The numbers are the same.

When we had the Liberals in power, we dropped from the best place to live several places down. Of course, I have no idea what that means or how it was measured.

I think Canada's image has generally been going down for quite a few years, before Harper even came in. I also think he probably hasn't effectively altered the direction in a positive direction, either -- to be honest, I think if we had just stayed the course with a Liberal government, we would still see our popularity slipping. In general, I think the progression of Canadian society has simply seen us moving slowly and slowly out of favour with some types of governments or some regions, while we get more cozy with others. I'm not sure if Ignatieff could turn this around or make it plateau, and I'm not sure if the Canadian public would be comfortable with what it would take -- since I don't know what it would take, though, I can't really comment on that.

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Like the statistic I put above, while it can mean something, it's still only one measure of a country, and it's meaning is not super important to the nation as a whole. There was a point when Saskatchewan was considered the best place to live in Canada WHILE we were listed as the best place to live in the world. Who here would think Saskatchewan was the best place to live in the world? I thought that's where Alberta sent the sexual deviants and people who couldn't function in normal society.

In any case, going to keep this short because last time I ended up writing while two pages of the thread were filled. We have to keep in mind the context of where this was said, at a single speech which took one night, with no real promises made, guys. I know that some feel we could spend less time focusing on this stuff, and that some feel it doesn't matter much to Canadians (and I admit to disagreeing with that), but considering the lack of solid promises, how little is really being committed by Ignatieff at this point, how much manpower it could take, and how little time it took for him to say this, I think you can give him a break and consider the fact that in the long run, he spent a lot more time wandering across the nation and discussing regional issues, as well as focusing on ongoing issues present in parliament, than he did a single evening giving a largely nebulous speech on this topic. It's not as if this is the central Liberal platform, or the only thing he is running the campaign on.

I also think folks have to remember that while our governments change frequently, the issues which they argue and discuss usually outlast each government, usually several governments. Just because it's at it's worst, or seems to be occurring at the time on government is in charge, like a financial crises, or a boom, or a rush of refugees, does not mean that it's that particular government's fault, but it can be an ongoing trend present over a long period of time. To really earmark any problem as specifically one government's fault is hence a really rough absolute, but I think that if you look at a government and feel they made something better or worse in a position, you can definitely make a case off of that. I think this is a great example of an ongoing problem, where the opinion of Canada was already going downhill a bit, especially because we did have some cases of our involvement being reduced internationally already, and that the case here is whether or not Harper is making it better or worse, or if Ignatieff could make it better or worse. Making the claim it's one party's fault, or that it only happened because of one party, or that it only happened while one government was around, is kind of a faulty absolute, and it's one of my annoying pet peeves. Sorry if my ramblings are boring you guys!

My thoughts, anyways, and I'm not all that smart anyways!

[Curtman]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Maybe it's you Curt and I'm doubting Thomas. Forgive me....

Which post are you responding to? Is this about Omar's dad again?

[EyeBrock]

No, it's about you Curt. You are the messiah.....

[EyeBrock]

Khar Khar:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

Hm. Did Canada really have any "street cred" when the Liberal were last in power, or is that a wistful look through the rose-colored shades?

I think we just changed the seating a bit on the room of people who like and dislike us with the Bloody Tories vs the Sodding Liberals. The numbers are the same.

When we had the Liberals in power, we dropped from the best place to live several places down. Of course, I have no idea what that means or how it was measured.

I think Canada's image has generally been going down for quite a few years, before Harper even came in. I also think he probably hasn't effectively altered the direction in a positive direction, either -- to be honest, I think if we had just stayed the course with a Liberal government, we would still see our popularity slipping. In general, I think the progression of Canadian society has simply seen us moving slowly and slowly out of favour with some types of governments or some regions, while we get more cozy with others. I'm not sure if Ignatieff could turn this around or make it plateau, and I'm not sure if the Canadian public would be comfortable with what it would take -- since I don't know what it would take, though, I can't really comment on that.

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Like the statistic I put above, while it can mean something, it's still only one measure of a country, and it's meaning is not super important to the nation as a whole. There was a point when Saskatchewan was considered the best place to live in Canada WHILE we were listed as the best place to live in the world. Who here would think Saskatchewan was the best place to live in the world? I thought that's where Alberta sent the sexual deviants and people who couldn't function in normal society.

In any case, going to keep this short because last time I ended up writing while two pages of the thread were filled. We have to keep in mind the context of where this was said, at a single speech which took one night, with no real promises made, guys. I know that some feel we could spend less time focusing on this stuff, and that some feel it doesn't matter much to Canadians (and I admit to disagreeing with that), but considering the lack of solid promises, how little is really being committed by Ignatieff at this point, how much manpower it could take, and how little time it took for him to say this, I think you can give him a break and consider the fact that in the long run, he spent a lot more time wandering across the nation and discussing regional issues, as well as focusing on ongoing issues present in parliament, than he did a single evening giving a largely nebulous speech on this topic. It's not as if this is the central Liberal platform, or the only thing he is running the campaign on.

I also think folks have to remember that while our governments change frequently, the issues which they argue and discuss usually outlast each government, usually several governments. Just because it's at it's worst, or seems to be occurring at the time on government is in charge, like a financial crises, or a boom, or a rush of refugees, does not mean that it's that particular government's fault, but it can be an ongoing trend present over a long period of time. To really earmark any problem as specifically one government's fault is hence a really rough absolute, but I think that if you look at a government and feel they made something better or worse in a position, you can definitely make a case off of that. I think this is a great example of an ongoing problem, where the opinion of Canada was already going downhill a bit, especially because we did have some cases of our involvement being reduced internationally already, and that the case here is whether or not Harper is making it better or worse, or if Ignatieff could make it better or worse. Making the claim it's one party's fault, or that it only happened because of one party, or that it only happened while one government was around, is kind of a faulty absolute, and it's one of my annoying pet peeves. Sorry if my ramblings are boring you guys!

My thoughts, anyways, and I'm not all that smart anyways!

I'd say you were one of the more reasoned, smart posters here Khar.

[Proculation]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Proculation Proculation:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Again, nothing on why Iggy is wrong? Instead of constant partisan whining, let's see you bring something objective to the table.

Seriously, you can be a liberal partisan (I've voted liberal 2 times on 4 so i'm not a partisan conservative). But, Iggy is against a minority government and we do not see him ! When he talks, it's like we are hearing a robot. He is too cartesian and he is not able to connect with the people.

You have to say that he is not a Chretien or a Trudeau. I'm sure he is a good professor but as a politician he is terrible.

I'm not commenting on Iggy the politician, but Iggy the analyst. He made an interesting commentary on Canada's current international image and foreign policy direction. I asked how he is wrong on this point - that's the issue of the thread. And i'm still waiting on actual critique on the article and Iggy's viewpoint.

My critique is quite simple and I said it at the beginning of this thread: that's nothing new. We have heard this argument for years. A leader of a political party in the opposition of a minority government should be able to "hit the nail" with different things every weeks to put the governing party in a weak position. That's not what we see at all.

[Demian_164]

Khar Khar:

I would tend to agree with EyeBrock. At this stage, I do not feel that the Liberals have a coherent message, the strength, nor the ability to effectively bring about the change which they are suggesting that they bring. I'm also not sure the other parties would be better or worse. At the same time, the focus of many parties right now seems to be more pandering to their bases, and in the case of all parties, take polar views rather than attempt to negotiate at all. As Mustang says below, which I agree with (and he did say it first, this is an edit), I do think Canadians find their international image to be of import.

I know I've drummed this point a few times but back a few decades ago alone, parliament was passing over 90% of all proposed legislation (and man I wish I could find that damnable source!). These days, it's less than half, and has been that way for a while. With geographical divisions, seeing a large scale change in the current voting atmosphere is unlikely. I have to admit that to some extent I am interested in the Liberal party being relegated to third party status to see if the NDP can manage to be a more effective opposition, but I am not sure they really have the strength or coherent message to bring that about either (but I feel they've stuck to their guns a bit more than the Libs have).

The Liberals need a restructuring, and I think it would have been good if Iggy had taken a step back from consistent confrontation to give the party time to settle. By pushing confrontation with a new line up and a new head, all he did was cause a lot of stress and strife in his own party, and it resulted in a lot of people leaving, others shifting spots, and generally poor media coverage when be backed down and began wavering on a lot of his points. To be honest, he's still wavering with his promise to follow austerity measures contrasting greatly with promises such as the one to spend a billion bucks to stimulate the Vancouver shipbuilding industry. Instead of taking time to get this consistent platform together and get the party on stable footing, he kept up pushing the same push which Dion left the party on, with the same fervor of confrontation. Unfortunately, if confrontation breeds anything, it's polarization, which breeds partisanship, and around the drain the government once again goes. This is the fault of all the leaders, but we really do need a more effective opposition which focuses on governing for the people rather than trying to get power out from under the feet of the current government.

The reason I have a C next to my name is more because of an outside issue (I was testing the system and can't get rid of it) rather than a political leaning. I find that my views cross over into several parties purview, and that the Conservatives also lack the drive, nor the breadth which really encapsulates my own viewpoint. Likewise, the Liberals do not adequately fit a center roll with their current set up, which seems mostly partisan based whenever I see them come up with jabs at other parties. In short, I'm not happy with the current government, but I'm not sure that having a Liberal Prime Minister with Ignatieff would improve Canada, or even our internationally (at least not dramatically). I think that not only are we walking down a path as a nation which diverges from many others, we're also closely allied and friends with a nation of which there are fairly ardent views from all sides, the US. It also does not help that, as Canadians, we are not part of the EU power/vote bloc or the Islamic Countries power/vote bloc, and with the way we are grouped internationally we are hence going to find stuff a little rougher to get into.

One of the most ironic things which has happened for me is that I find older topics I participated with on other boards now look quite silly, since many of them were remarking about Harper's American ties and how he was too American (with his funding) to lead Canada. Yet now we have two party leaders who are either American or spent a large portion of their life in America, and another who spends much of his time down in the States (Layton) at democratic party functions or other events. Over the last four years, it seems that the stories of Harper being too American have diminished, but so has the criticism in general on any party leader being too American. Since a lot of this criticism was coming from the then-Liberal or then-NDP party supporters, I think it says a lot that suddenly this has become a non-issue when the shoe is on the other foot, especially when this shoe happens to be several times bigger. At the same time, I think it's also funny that those who were adamantly defending Harper on the right, have also most ardently kept up the criticism. Of course, folks all over the place on the spectrum do the same, I just find it funny reading back all those years and comparing those posts to now and seeing the absolute 180 shift of some pundits and posters.

I'm not even sure what the official policy is right now on China and India, for any of the parties, since it seems from issue to issue, the positions shift, even if "in general" there is a certain "direction" a party wants to go. When Harper went and did follow their advice, and courted them, he got serious criticism for not doing it sooner, or for doing it at all, as if by actually heeding the opposition he was doing something wrong. Likewise, at other times, supporters will be ardently opposed to the Conservative economic plans claiming that too many jobs will be lost to China and India, amongst other developing nations, and they must be stopped. Given that our relations to these nations is likely going to be strongly oriented on our relationship with the US and the economies of both of our countries, you can't really have it both ways. I also feel that the "strategy" suggested by Ignatieff, as he describes it, will not keep the Islamic countries who voted against us from voting for us as time goes on, nor will it give us a better chance with getting voted into something over a EU country with the EU voting bloc. Hence, I think his choice to use the UN as a point of contention as strongly as he is breaths very strongly of a partisan objective to me. At the same time, I think it fails to encapsulate the required expansion with relations to South American countries, like Brazil or Chile, which are growing into economic powers in our own backyard, nor does that strategy effectively suggest how we would approach other nations which are typically considered to be in the Chinese sphere of influence. Under Harper, we at least worked to expand our FTAs to various nations in the EU and South American power bloc, even if at not the rate, nor with the diplomatic expansion I would personally have appreciated.

All in all, this announcement doesn't do much for me because the goals are incredibly nebulous, and it doesn't describe how he will go about doing things. It feels very much more like he is just telling people what he thinks they want to hear, which is criticism, and then leaving out details on what he would like to change. While I know I am whacking away a lot at the Liberals here, that is more or less because this thread topic is about the Liberal announcement on what they would change, so they are going to be a focal point for my criticism at this point. I could just as easily write a massive spew on the Conservatives, or NDP.

I have a feeling that the reason he brought up a lot of this was an attempt to carry us into the "this is where we need to get involved with the UN," especially by bringing up nuclear weapon proliferation, child soldiers, climate change and land mine removal. International programs which target these issues are either done through or related with the UN, and hence would likely have Canada join these programs in an attempt to further our influence or involvement there. At least, that's my guess where he would eventually go with that. I'm not sure how I feel about that. While I feel the UN was a great idea, how it is carried out and what it does does not seem to have the impact nor the effect which I would hope it would have, and in large part it's because the UN seems wholeheartedly supportive of concepts involving appeasement, especially for me when it comes to such thing as IMF debt, and foreign aid. I am at times quite critical of that body, and while I can understand that it wants to avoid breaches of sovereignty there are times where avoiding such confrontations makes points brought forward by the UN moot.

Likewise, he did not remark on policy with America and Mexico, international economic goals, ongoing trade disputes, or recent events outside of these very broad topics. These topics are important to Canadians, and are important to the summit he was at. To not touch on such concerns as the Sri Lankan/Tamil Tiger debate, Khadr, or even specific ongoing conflicts Canadian troops are involved with in some form didn't feel right to me, and I felt it would do good to get a perspective out there from the Liberal party leader. In the end, outside of the UN reference, this did not seem like a very topical speech. I'm assuming a bit that this was very UN-centric.

I will give him kudos to the end bit, and generally I am very supportive of the message there. In all honesty, I think that the change in Canadian involvement in that regard has seen a very strong and continuous drop off for several consecutive governments now, and I'd like to see Canada take a stronger role there. I would have liked to hear what he would say to Canada's involvement in Peace Keeping efforts, but perhaps I am asking for too much -- I did not know how much time he was given or had to talk about this.

Finally, on the topic of Ignatieff as an academic. Ignatieff is likely a very skilled academic, and he must be respected for his involvement internationally, as a teacher, for the positions he has, and for his commitment to international affairs. He has a very impressive list of accomplishments, and he has mine, and many other's, respect for that. However, we must keep in mind that Ignatieff came back to Canada only half a decade ago to run in a leadership race he lost, and members of the Liberal party had to go and ask him to return to Canada. When people look at who they want as leaders, you have to understand that there is going to be an interest to having someone who has clearly represented and worked for Canada, rather than a person who has represented and worked for other nations, like Ignatieff has. More than 30 years is no short period of time to be away from a nation.

Do I mind that he's been out of nation for a long period? I don't know, to be honest, but probably not. I do mind that while he was out of country, he did not identify as a Canadian, I have to admit. I also admit that I mind that while he did return to run for the leadership of the Liberal party, he didn't return of his own desire but because several higher ranking Liberal party members went and got him back. I do, however, feel that he was and is the best that the Liberals currently have to offer, and a Leadership race at this point, considering which candidates continue to lack interest and which ones do, would not take the Liberals in the right direction. I don't think Ignatieff has helped the Liberals, but I do think he has improved their odds over someone like Rae (considering many persons I would prefer to be there over Rae have dropped out of the running or no longer show interest in party leadership).

EDIT: Some edits to first paragraph. Apologies for the length, all!

too long.

[Curtman]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

Hm. Did Canada really have any "street cred" when the Liberal were last in power, or is that a wistful look through the rose-colored shades?

We had a leader who strangled a guy, was pied, and was almost assassinated by a crazy drunk guy with a plastic fork from KFC.

Nothing that funny has happened with Harper.

There was that guy who lit a fire on his front lawn...

$1:

A 29-year-old man has been charged after he allegedly started a small fire in front of the prime minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive in Ottawa.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Remember that sentiment next time you see a Veteran and on Remembrance Day, because that when foreign policy matters.

I go to the Remembrance Day ceremony in my city every year to pay my respects, and really don't give a shit about politics when I'm listening to the service, paing my respects, or shaking the hand of a veteran in thanks for my wonderful life and the wondergful country we live in. Politics shouldn't need to matter on November 11, only the sacrifice and bravery of the men that spilled their guts on the battlefield so we can sit back and enjoy what we have now.

Lest we forget

-J.

[Mustang1]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Remember that sentiment next time you see a Veteran and on Remembrance Day, because that when foreign policy matters.

I go to the Remembrance Day ceremony in my city every year to pay my respects, and really don't give a shit about politics when I'm listening to the service, paing my respects, or shaking the hand of a veteran in thanks for my wonderful life and the wondergful country we live in. Politics shouldn't need to matter on November 11, only the sacrifice and bravery of the men that spilled their guts on the battlefield so we can sit back and enjoy what we have now.

Lest we forget

-J.

The two world wars were about foreign policy, the correct approach to international conditions at the time - and i'm proud about Canada's call to arms when others are in need. It's about politics - it was about largely liberal democracies standing up to belligerent ideologies that saw their realization through war and hegemony. Maybe learn about our history and maybe while you claim you won't forget, you clearly don't know.