Canadian Politics: Orange is the new government

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Canadian Politics: Orange is the new government

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Or, Canadian Politics Megathread:

No, that's not us reading the posts of some of our favourite Canadian posters, it's Paul Dewar reacting to Paul Calandra's hideous week of ridiculous House of Commons antics (PS don't miss Marc Garneau's high-quality eyeroll either). But just in case you haven't been paying attention to anything in Canada for the last year (and let's be honest, why would you?) some big things have happened/are currently happening/will happen at some time in the future:

Toronto's mayoral race is in the home stretch, and it looks like John Tory will be the next mayor of Toronto, narrowly beating out the Ford brother that didn't get cancer and perennial third-place candidate Olivia Chow.
Stephen Harper has committed Canada to a military mission against ISIS in Iraq, the details of which we've mostly learned from foreign sources since Harper prefers making major announcements like that outside of Canada.
When questioned about the mission in Iraq by the leader of the official opposition during Question Period, Conservative MP Paul Calandra responded with a ridiculous tirade against the NDP for having some guy who identified as an NDPer on Facebook post a status update criticizing Israel, in answer to three consecutive questions about Iraq. No, this is not a joke.
Thanks to Calandra, who followed that up with a literally tear-filled apology in which he promised to keep aggressively defending Israel in the House even when not prompted to do so, we now have a fledgling debate about the role of the Speaker to moderate debate and force relevant answers.
Canada's prostitution laws were struck down as unconstitutional and the government was given a year to rewrite the legislation. The Conservative government's new prostitution bill, C-36 (or, if you prefer, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act), is currently before the Senate. It has been criticized by sex workers as even worse for them and their safety than the previous legal framework, and it's unknown whether or not it will survive a court challenge when one certainly arises.
Canada's most famous sex worker/dominatrix, Terri-Jean Bedford, of Bedford v. Canada, the case that struck down the old prostitution laws in the first place, has promised that if C-36 passes she will "make us forget about Mike Duffy" by revealing intimate details about MPs and sex workers, and has promised to challenge the new law in court if it passes.
The CRTC pitched a poo poo fit at Netflix (and Google) threatening sanctions for non-disclosure for purposes of Cancon. They then proceeded to make a show of ignoring the two companies' submissions when they refused to make disclosures, neatly avoiding a court challenge in a political environment currently toxic to the CRTC.
There have been a few provincial elections recently. Ontario responded to Tim Hudak proposing wild austerity and Andrea Horwath running a populist campaign by handing Kathleen Wynne and her progressive budget a majority government. Among other things, the Liberals have promised higher taxes on the wealthy, a commitment to infrastructure spending, and a new Ontario Pension Plan, in addition to balancing the budget by 2017-18, which coincidentally will be the next time we have an election. New Brunswick just elected a Liberal majority as well. Alberta just elected a new premier (but not a whole new government) because Alison Redford resigned over a spending scandal. Jim Prentice, formerly of federal politics, is now the Premier of Alberta and is currently running for a seat as an MLA in a byelection. He will likely be Premier until 2016, when a new election will decide whether or not Alberta lets the Wildrose Party actually prove how terrible their policies really are.
Our next federal election will be in October 2015 unless Stephen Harper decides it should be earlier. Current polls indicate Justin Trudeau would win that election if it happened today, and would then legalize marijuana and ... do something else? No one really knows except bunnyofdoom.
Everybody is freaking out about ISIS/Ebola/whatever new thing it is today, because no one in Canada has any real problems, except for the hundreds or thousands of missing aboriginal women, but really they probably all just ran away from home and coincidentally died all by themselves anyway so we shouldn't even bother investigating. What are you, a sociologist or something?
Canada's housing/condo bubble continues to inflate because as we all know, house prices only ever go up and are a perfectly safe driver of the economy. Reminder that our economy only keeps growing because of increasing consumer debt fueled by rising home equity, since our governments and corporations hate spending money.
The federal government is projected to have a budget surplus next year for the first time since before the 2008 recession, and just in time for next year's election. In response to our sluggish economic growth and impending housing collapse, the government has promised to spend this surplus on tax cuts because that worked really well for George W. Bush.
Last but not least, Canada has reaffirmed how much we hate our indigenous population by being the only UN member to reject a new UN document about the rights of indigenous people. Way to go, everybody!

Meet the cast:

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, and alleged kitten eater, demonstrating his party's new approach to attack ads against Justin Trudeau.

The Honourable Thomas Mulcair, Leader of the Official Opposition, Leader of the New Democratic Party, and Commie-Fascist-Populist-Marxist-Stalinist-Nazi-Champion-of-Hard-Working-Families-Tony-Blair-Praising Leftie Loon, assuming his true form.

, alternately Charles Atlas Before Picture, alternately post-fight Sylvester Stallone, alternately every TA you ever had, alternately the king of pot (there ain't none higher), alternately John Cusack fishing for ethnic votes, alternately a terror from Stephen Harper's nightmares (and now yours too)
Justin Trudeau, Leader of the Liberal Party, Unqualified and in-WAY-over-his-head Prime-Minister-Elect, inviting you to have dinner with him and pitch him a policy idea should you happen to win his most recent fundraising contest.

Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party, demonstrating how hard you should laugh when someone calls her the House of Commons's conscience.

~~Mario Beaulieu~~ Gilles Duceppe, Leader of the Bloc Quebecois, returning to the leadership at the absolute last minute after leading his party to annihilation four years ago and retiring from public life. The alternative was even more dire for the Bloc.

Where to read about Canadian politics:
Well, aside from this thread, where someone tends to post important breaking news (usually phrased as "why are you guys talking about poutine/university classes/public transit when [INSERT IMPORTANT ISSUE HERE] is happening?"), Canada has a few major news sources. On the left-ish side of things, you have the Toronto Star and CBC website. For centre-right-ish things, you have The Globe and Mail, Macleans, and the National Post. If you are a raving lunatic who is convinced that Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama are in cahoots to steal your guns and give them to Muslim Terrorists, there's always the Sun News Network. Otherwise, keep an eye on Google News and #cdnpoli on Twitter. The iPolitics morning brief is also a good, if lengthy, summary of daily events which you may need to subscribe to get, though Kafka Esq. usually does a good job of reposting them here if there's something particularly interesting.

There are some good journalists/opinion writers out there who cover Canadian politics, and their names are not Eric Grenier. Taken from Kafka Esq.'s OP from the last thread, he listed Chris Selley, Aaron Wherry, Paul Wells, Andrew Coyne, Johns Ibbitson and Ivison (I'm not convinced they're different people), and Dan Gardner, and I would add Kady O'Malley who does an excellent job livetweeting most things that happen in the House of Commons for the CBC (@kady, if you're interested) and Neil MacDonald who writes about American and international politics from a Canadian perspective, also for the CBC. Most good Canadian journalists are pretty leftist (though I'm clearly biased by my own political views), good right-wing journalists are often drowned out by shitheads like Ezra Levant or the entire National Post editorial team, but Andrew Coyne is pretty right-wing and definitely a lot more influential than anyone else on that list, considering he is basically the face of Postmedia News which is one of our largest newsmedia conglomerates.

What this thread is for:

Talking about Canadian politics from anywhere in the country, at any level--municipal, provincial, federal, international.
Talking about all the elections and byelections we're constantly having.
Laughing at stupid poo poo MPs do.
Discussion of the direction Canada is heading in, whether it's to the left, the right, better, worse, whatever.
Debate about how our economy is total poo poo propped up by imported foreign labour and a massive housing bubble.
Regionalism slapfights.

What this thread is NOT for, but it happens all the time anyway:

Whose city is the best/worst? (it's Toronto. It's always Toronto that is simultaneously the best and worst)
Whose public transit is the worst.
Foodchat.
Yes, we get it, you hate Tim Hortons.
Stories about our time in Canadian universities.

What this thread is REALLY not for and you should avoid at all costs:

Posting about posters posting about posters. We get it, you hate PT6A because he's not a Marxist/swagger like us because he's a fascist/Cultural Imperial because he's off his meds/bunnyofdoom because he's not a true leftist/Helsing because he's smarter than you/Kafka Esq. for having a better username than you. Shut up. No one cares.

If you are a crazy masochist you can hang out in #diefenbunker on synirc.net and talk about Canadian politics in real time.

Somebody has issued a correction as of 23:08 on Jul 22, 2015

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 08:16

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Don't forget to mention how much we loving hate our indigenous population!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/02/canada-un-indigenous-rights_n_5918868.html
"Canada Is The Only UN Member To Reject Landmark Indigenous Rights Document"

Off to a good start!

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:10

Chamale: Jul 11, 2010; I'm helping!

Baronjutter posted:

Don't forget to mention how much we loving hate our indigenous population!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/02/canada-un-indigenous-rights_n_5918868.html
"Canada Is The Only UN Member To Reject Landmark Indigenous Rights Document"

Off to a good start!

I remember back in 2008 when these headlines would be "Harper and Bush only ones to reject important treaty". Now we're going it alone, thanks Obama.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:17

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

Man, I looooooove Tim Hortons.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:18

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

Baronjutter posted:

Don't forget to mention how much we loving hate our indigenous population!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/02/canada-un-indigenous-rights_n_5918868.html
"Canada Is The Only UN Member To Reject Landmark Indigenous Rights Document"

Off to a good start!

Nah man didn't you see the olympics, we built giant statues of them and everything! If fetishizing a culture for the sake of commercialism isn't love, I don't know what is!

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:19

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Honestly I don't see how any of us, specially other countries, can criticize canada on human rights, do they even know how much we've spent on our human rights museum??

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:21

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

I found a picture of Paul Calandra's daughter:

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:23

xilni: Feb 26, 2014

El Scotch posted:

Man, I looooooove Tim Hortons.

Since I no longer live in Toronto this thread will have to be my nostalgic Canada fix whenever I miss that absurdly sweet timmies hot chocolate.

EDIT:

vyelkin posted:

I found a picture of Paul Calandra's daughter:

This is the part of Canada that I do not miss, sick of the blame Israel/US/West for every single problem crowd.

Second only to the UTSU nut jobs making fools of themselves at every Men's Rights :airquote:

event they can find, bringing ten times as much attention to these conferences as opposed to if everyone just ignored them.

For all it's faults I don't have to deal with this poo poo in the US.

xilni has issued a correction as of 17:29 on Oct 3, 2014

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:24

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

vyelkin posted:

I found a picture of Paul Calandra's daughter:

She's right, why does Israel get the soft touch? Time for it to get treated in the same dispassionate manner as other oppressive Middle Eastern regimes :getin:

Excluding Saudi Arabia of course, cause they're obviously good people.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:26

Kenny Logins: Jan 11, 2011; EVERY MORNING I WAKE UP AND OPEN PALM SLAM A WHITE WHALE INTO THE PEQUOD. IT'S HELL'S HEART AND RIGHT THEN AND THERE I STRIKE AT THEE ALONGSIDE WITH THE MAIN CHARACTER, ISHMAEL.

The CRTC pitched a poo poo fit at Netflix (and Google) threatening sanctions for non-disclosure for purposes of Cancon. They then proceeded to make a show of ignoring the two companies' submissions when they refused to make disclosures, neatly avoiding a court challenge in a political environment currently toxic to the CRTC.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:33

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Kenny Logins posted:

The CRTC pitched a poo poo fit at Netflix (and Google) threatening sanctions for non-disclosure for purposes of Cancon. They then proceeded to make a show of ignoring the two companies' submissions when they refused to make disclosures, neatly avoiding a court challenge in a political environment currently toxic to the CRTC.

Good call, I'll add this.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:34

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Ontario News Watch has a pretty good article on the internal machinations behind the Ontario PC's latest election disaster. Part of what is neat here is how it demonstrates the way that political handlers such as the campaign manager try to manipulate the media through selective appearances and interviews to create the impression that they're good at their jobs. It also gives some insights into how the Ontario PC party has been operating since Mike Harris took it in a hard right direction in the 1990s.

quote:

The Magic, Disappearing PC Campaign Managers: Now You See Them, Now You Don't
By Susanna Kelley

A recent attempt to put the blame for the Ontario Progressive Conservative election loss on the shoulders of party leadership candidates Christine Elliott, Monte McNaughton, Vic Fideli and soon-to-be candidate Lisa MacLeod, rather than with Tim Hudak and his campaign team where it belongs, seriously stretches credibility.

According to the Canadian Press, sources that worked on the Hudak campaign say the MPPs weren't broadsided, as they claimed, with the disastrous pledge to fire 100,000 public servants.

Rather, all four signed documents a year before the campaign - documents obtained by both CP and OntarioNewsWatch - in which the idea was floated.

It is important to remember the documents are marked "draft," as you see below, and were not identified as the platform. More about that later.

Some of those who worked on the campaign are angry they're getting blamed for both the idea and the loss.

They are upset at attempts to run them out of the party by Tories who are angry at the fourth election loss in a row.

Interestingly, three of those losing campaigns - 2003, 2011 and 2014 - were run by members of the old Mike Harris gang, the so-called "Whiz Kids."

The Whiz Kids won in 1995 and 1999 with their trademark campaign - one that introduced vicious attack-ads, divide and conquer tactics, and deliberately targeted specific groups - welfare recipients and teachers - to beat up on. Simply put, the divide and conquer tactic worked.

Chief among the Whizzes are Tom Long and Leslie Noble, architects of three campaigns since 1995 (Ms. Noble ran a fourth as well, in 2003.)

When their campaigns were successful, the pair were quick to publicly take credit for the wins.

But when there are losses, they are nowhere to be seen.

And so, it seems this time, with the party suffering its worst defeat in more than 20 years, blame is landing everywhere but at their feet.

This is not the first time.

Election night, June 5 1995. I was in North Bay to cover PC leader Mike Harris as the polls closed and the votes were quickly tabulated.

The Tory campaign had been a new kind of knockdown, drag-em-out, divisive and nasty fight not seen in Ontario before.

Mr. Long and Ms. Noble had introduced tactics used by the US Republican party in the campaign. It featured a slew of integrated platform planks that had been carefully crafted and released (accidently) a year before the election. It was called the Common Sense Revolution.

As in all successful campaigns, however, just two or three of those planks were emphasized, cherry-picked from a booklet full of promises: a 30% across the board tax cut, a 22% cut in welfare payments and ending affirmative action.

This is the usual way things are done in politics: the campaign team cherry-picks a couple of issues they think can win power for them, and they go hard on those messages.

On that election night at Mike Harris' North Bay victory celebration, the mood turned from tense excitement to unbridled joy as the results poured in.

It was a landslide. Mr. Harris had won a majority government.

As is always the case on election night, the TV networks, including the one I was working for at the time, all had their spots lined up one beside another, the length of the hall.

As the vast size of the Tory win became clear, into the hall came two individuals every network had been clamouring to interview: co-campaign managers Tom Long and Leslie Noble.

Up and down the media line they went, happy to give interview after interview on national television about the massive Tory win and their parts in it.

Oh, they were humble on-camera: "This is Mike Harris' victory," they said, careful to give credit to the party leader.

However, just by going in front of the cameras that night, everyone knew they were getting the credit too.

Two political stars were born.

Both were quite available to come on television shows as panelists for the next several years.

Election Night, June 3, 1999. Again, I was in North Bay to cover the Tories for election night; again, all the networks were on hand, set up side by side in a line the length of the hall.

Again, when the votes were tallied, Mr. Harris had been re-elected with a majority, this time with 45% of voters casting their ballots for his party. Back-to-back majorities: quite an accomplishment.

Again, into the hall came the co-campaign managers Tom Long and Leslie Noble.

Their political stardom ensured every network was once again jockeying to get them on air, and they were very happy to oblige.

So again, up and down the media line they went, giving interview after interview to every network about how they'd run the campaign.

Election Night, October 2, 2003. By this time Mr. Harris had resigned and Ernie Eves was Premier. Leslie Noble and Jaime Watt were the co-campaign chairs. Jeff Bangs was the campaign manager.

When the Tory loss became apparent, of the three, only Mr. Bangs would come out to face the cameras to try to explain the defeat. Another Tory operative, Andrew Hodgson, was sent out with him as well to do the dirty work. The only Whiz Kid that made himself available was Paul Rhodes.

Ms. Noble and Mr. Watt had refused to come out to be interviewed about the losing campaign.

Election Night, October 6, 2011: Leslie Noble, Tom Long and the Whiz Kids are involved in the campaign at the highest levels, but secretly. The idea to push what became an infamous charge that "foreign workers" were taking Canadians' jobs (this Tory campaign's version of sacrificial victims for the Tories to beat up on) was pushed hard by Whiz Kids and their operatives working full time on the campaign.

But despite pulling the strings behind the scenes, when Mr. Hudak loses, the Whiz Kids are again nowhere to be found. Instead, the blood on the floor belongs to campaign manager Mark Spiro, who deliberately and voluntarily takes it on to shield Mr. Hudak.

Obviously Mr. Spiro was not to blame - Mr. Hudak lost 17 seats in the next election when Mr. Spiro was not involved.

Beginning to see a pattern here?

Election Night, June 12, 2014. Ms. Noble and Mr. Long are again co-chairing the PC campaign, Tim Hudak's second as leader.

This campaign too is a disaster. The pledge to fire 100,000 public servants sends voters running to the Liberals, delivering the PCs their fourth straight election defeat in a row.

Guess who takes the fall in the press over the next several days?

Not campaign co-chairs Tom Long and Leslie Noble, who called the shots all the way through the campaign.

Instead campaign manager Ian Robertson wears the defeat in public. It is he that does the scathing media interviews.

But in the Tory backrooms, no one is fooled.

And there are many in the party who want the Whiz Kids out for good.

As the criticism of them grows louder, including by the leadership candidates, suddenly the signed documents outlining the 100,000 firings are leaked and blame now spreads to the leadership candidates.

Except as noted above, these documents are clearly marked drafts, were shown to the MPPs a year before the election, weren't the official and final platform, and contain many different ideas that the party may or may not run on.

Let's be very clear here.

It is always - always - the campaign team that picks the two or three big campaign issues to run on.

There is absolutely no evidence it was any different this time.

Yet when it comes to taking responsibility for picking the 100,000 public servant firings, like a game of Where's Wally, Ms. Noble and Mr. Long can't be found.

At the regional post-mortem meetings after the campaign last summer, no one seems to have seen neither hide nor hair of either one, according to a number of Tory insiders who attended.

Mr. Long and Ms. Noble have both benefitted tremendously from the "star" reputation they gained through the PC party.

Their careers soared, and their pocketbooks have been fattened with a lot of both public and private sector money gained through their association with PC Premier Mike Harris and the other party leaders.

But when the political going gets tough, it appears Mr. Long and Ms. Noble get going ... running as fast as they can, as far as they can.

Also, welcome, everyone to the new Soemthing Awful Canadian Politics megathread!

credit to lonelywurm

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:39

peter banana: Sep 2, 2008; Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

Ban white lego men from Canadian politics

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:40

swagger like us: Oct 27, 2005; Don't mind me. We must protect rapists and misogynists from harm. If they're innocent they must not be named. Surely they'll never harm their sleeping, female patients. Watch me defend this in great detail. I am not a mens rights activist either.

My point on the possible intervention into Iraq isn't to paint a middle-of-the-road fallacy here where we have warmongering hawks on one side, and naive doves on the other and that the "answer is somewhere in the middle". My point is that I don't think its fair to criticize the Liberals on not, as that one poster suggested, unequivocally rejecting the possible use of force option that exists because "humanitarian options" are much better.

First off, no humanitarian options are going to exist for the Kurds when they are straight up ethnically cleansed by ISIS. There won't be anyone to give humanitarian aid to. So, supporting the intervention with combat air strikes, intelligence support or any other type of second-line support to ensure that the one actual stable nation/state in the region (Kurdistan) actually stays afloat is quite reasonable.

Mission creep is definitely a serious issue, and always has been. But to pretend that the solution to mission creep is not to do anything at all is disingenuous.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:40

Duck Rodgers: Oct 9, 2012

Kenny Logins posted:

The CRTC pitched a poo poo fit at Netflix (and Google) threatening sanctions for non-disclosure for purposes of Cancon. They then proceeded to make a show of ignoring the two companies' submissions when they refused to make disclosures, neatly avoiding a court challenge in a political environment currently toxic to the CRTC.

Didn't google and Netflix basically say "there's lots of Canadian content/users on our services" and then refuse to provide any evidence for these claims? If I'm not completely misunderstanding this then the CRTC seems to be correct in ignoring what amounts to anecdotal evidence.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:40

Kafka Esq.: Jan 1, 2005; "If you ever even think about calling me anything but 'The Crab' I will go so fucking crab on your ass you won't even see what crab'd your crab" -The Crab(TM)

I noticed that there's no ban on boozechat, so let me tell you, son, I am one HUNG OVER motherfucker right now.

edit: gently caress I love this thread title.

edit2: content

quote:

Happy Friday to you.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will lay out his government�s plan for a Canadian role in the fight against ISIS today, with a vote on the mission expected to come Monday. In a press release e-mailed to reporters last night, the prime minister�s director of communications, Jason MacDonald, said opposition parties were informed that Harper would rise in the House to deliver a statement on �Canada�s additional support for counter-terrorism efforts against ISIL.� He�s set to outline both Canada�s military contribution and �our ongoing humanitarian support.�

Already there are hints from Liberal leader Justin Trudeau that his party, like the NDP, won�t be on-side with a combat role.

In Australia, the federal government has approved bombing missions to combat extremists in Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Abbott said: �I want to assure the Australian people this will be as long as it needs to be, and as short as it possibly can be.�

Earlier this week the first case of Ebola showed up at a hospital outside of Africa. Last night there was word that testing is being done on a patient at a Toronto hospital as a precaution. Officials are insisting it's "very unlikely" the individual has the virus, but they do have a fever and a travel history from West Africa. A note was sent out to staff at the University Health Network to let them know about the situation. The patient is in isolation and will remain there until the test results are in within 24 hours.

Meanwhile a freelance cameraman with NBC News has been diagnosed with Ebola in Liberia, which has prompted the network to pull its entire crew out of the country and place them in a 21-day quarantine in the U.S.

Speaking at a conference hosted by the progressive think tank Canada 2020 in Ottawa yesterday, Quebec�s Intergovernmental Minister Jean-Marc Fournier trotted out talk about possibly re-opening the Constitution, pointing out that the distinct society clause that helped scuttle the Meech Lake constitutional accord has since become a fait accompli. �The distinct society is now better recognized and accepted by political actors and by the courts,�said Fournier. �Quebec is a nation within a federation. It is a pluralistic society that has, for a long time now, practiced inter-culturalism.� Now that Quebec�s distinct society has become a reality, it can be put in writing, he said. It remains to be seen who might be keen to go near that little hot potato with a 10-ft pole.

Still at the 2020, there was plenty of talk of infrastructure. And while it may not be sexy, as Edmonton mayor Don Iveson pointed out, �it�s pressing, especially when your basement is filling up with human waste.� It�s hard to argue with that. Iveson, a witness to Alberta�s floods, was part of a public and private sector panel that debated a better approach to tackling things like decaying bridges, highways and water systems and the overwhelming improvement bills that come with them.

Elsewhere at the conference, tensions appeared in the search for a new progressive economics, with differing opinions on just what that meant.

Employment Minister Jason Kenney told those gathered that the government will be launching a website in the next few months to steer students toward the post-secondary education that will land them jobs. Repeating a message he�s delivered frequently since returning from a fact-finding skills mission to Germany earlier this year, he stressed the need for an overhaul of the way Canadians think about post-secondary education. In his speech he made it clear the goal isn�t to just copy the German system per se, which sends large numbers of teenagers into apprenticeship programs. But he did speak with certainty about a more German approach to lowering Canada�s unacceptably high youth unemployment rate �a rate nearly twice as high as the general Canadian population�s.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford says doctors have told him there�s a 50/50 survival rate for the rare and aggressive form of cancer he�s battling. Having started chemotherapy, he says he�s taking things day by day and doesn�t know how much he�ll be able to be a part of debates leading up to the city�s Oct. 27 election because his energy levels are all over the map.

Here and there:

Premier Philippe Couillard holds a news conference to discuss the results of a symposium on ways to stem bullying.
Statistics Canada releases international merchandise trade for August, production of principal field crops for September and a study on end-of-life care, 2012.
Steven Blaney, minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness will be giving a speech at Algonquin College's Cyber Security Day conference.
Question period gets underway at 11:15 a.m.
The NCC, in conjunction with Ottawa Architecture Week, holds a discussion on design and architecture in the Capital with the Gov. Gen.'s Award recipients.
The final day of the Canada 2020 policy conference. There will be a panel discussion at 8:30 a.m. on privacy and cyber security. Also, a luncheon keynote speech by former Quebec premier Jean Charest.
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair speaks at the National Forum on Clean Energy and Industry and at the Living Waters rally.
MP Pierre Lemieux makes an announcement in Vankleek Hill in support of Canada's beer industry.
The CRTC holds a hearing to determine whether the wholesale mobile wireless services market is sufficiently competitive, if not, what regulatory measures are required.
Greg Rickford, federal minister of Natural Resources and minister for FedNor, delivers remarks to the Chatham-Kent Chamber of Commerce, where he will discuss the importance of the energy sector to Canada's and southwestern Ontario's economy.
Parliamentary Secretary James Bezan speaks at a fundraising banquet hosted by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (Oshawa/Durham Branch) and also makes an announcement regarding Canada's support for increasing equitable access to justice for Ukrainian citizens, particularly individuals from marginalized groups. He will be joined by Durham MP Erin O'Toole and Oshawa MP Colin Carrie.
The Ontario Native Women's Association hosts a vigil in Thunder Bay to honour murdered and missing aboriginal women.
Senator Bob Runciman holds a closed meeting with members of the Amalgamated Transit Union and representatives of the Toronto taxi industry to discuss Bill S-221, which amends the Criminal Code to protect public transit operators.
Industry Minister James Moore will be at the University of Waterloo to make an announcement in support of Canada's digital economy.
Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith challenges AlbertaPremier Jim Prentice on entitlements.
Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan hosts its annual symposium in Winnipeg with prominent speakers from that country as well as with CBC reporter Mellissa Fung, who was kidnapped while on assignment in 2008.
Michelle Rempel, minister of state for western economic diversification, makes announcement about skills training opportunities at the Saskatchewan Aviation Learning Centre. She also speaks at a lunch of the Greater Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce.
Alice Wong, minister of state (seniors), will announce Government of Canada support for Vancouver seniors through the New Horizons for Seniors Program.
The Canadian Women Voters Congress, SFU Public Square, and Oxfam Canada host Let Us In! A Forum on Sexism in Politics, hosted by former Park Board candidate Trish Kelly in Vancouver.
Federal Northern Development Minister Bernard Valcourt and Leona Aglukkaq, minister for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, make an announcement on the future of Nunavut.

He�s not stepping down, but, in his first concession to the thousands of pro-democracy protestors who�ve taken to the streets this week, Hong Kong�s chief executive Leung Chun-ying said late yesterday that he would meet with student leaders. The New York Times has put together these images of the Umbrella Revolution.

The top U.S. commander in the country says although Afghan military casualties have spiked in recent weeks amid an increase in Taliban attacks, rebel gains were fleeting and he was confident Afghan forces could stop them from holding ground. U.S. Army General John Campbell, the head of the International Security Assistance Force, told a Pentagon briefing yesterday he didn�t have an exact tally of Afghan casualties for this year, but said it was slightly higher than in 2013 because of the recent spike in combat in Helmand and elsewhere. He downplayed the significance of the surge in attacks.

Finally this morning, looking for someplace new to visit this weekend? British journalist James O�Malley has no shortage of ideas, but chances are he�s already beaten you there. In his second video installment of all things touristy and Canadian, he comes across the world�s biggest axe�and everyone�s favourite tourist attraction, Conservative MP David Tilson.

Have a great weekend. We�ll see you back here Monday.

Kafka Esq. has issued a correction as of 17:47 on Oct 3, 2014

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:43

Kenny Logins: Jan 11, 2011; EVERY MORNING I WAKE UP AND OPEN PALM SLAM A WHITE WHALE INTO THE PEQUOD. IT'S HELL'S HEART AND RIGHT THEN AND THERE I STRIKE AT THEE ALONGSIDE WITH THE MAIN CHARACTER, ISHMAEL.

Duck Rodgers posted:

Didn't google and Netflix basically say "there's lots of Canadian content/users on our services" and then refuse to provide any evidence for these claims? If I'm not completely misunderstanding this then the CRTC seems to be correct in ignoring what amounts to anecdotal evidence.

Michael Geist is, as usual, the authority for a good run-down on these things, but I'll address your concern directly vis-a-vis the point I was making.

It is one thing to say:

"we're doing this open forum, to get, you know, the voice of Canadians, so why don't you two come and say some words."

"Oh, what you're saying, would you mind backing that up?"

"No? Ok, well thanks anyway, but we can't really act on what you're saying. Thanks for coming."

It is another to say:

"Hey! You two! Come to our hearings or else! Yeah you go ahead and say you're volunteering, put on a show but everyone knows the CRTC's the swingin' dicks around here."

"Oh you actually think you're helping Canadian culture in a way we didn't directly dictate? Well how you've been operating is technically by our past dictate not to actually dictate you!"

"You think we can't keep things confidential? How dare you. How dare you indirectly remind people that we have and currently still sell access to a no-call list."

"Give us these documents or else there will be big trouble. You think we can't make big trouble for you? Well, we'll see about that!"

"So, you're real lucky, you two. We're just going to spare you this time and strike everything you said from the public record. Yeah. You should be afraid. It has nothing to do with the current government publicly refusing to have our backs, and nothing to do with your ability to fight us in court, and the average Canadians' distrust for us and concern for the relevance of our methods in 2014."

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:48

egg tats: Apr 3, 2010

swagger like us posted:

My point on the possible intervention into Iraq isn't to paint a middle-of-the-road fallacy here where we have warmongering hawks on one side, and naive doves on the other and that the "answer is somewhere in the middle". My point is that I don't think its fair to criticize the Liberals on not, as that one poster suggested, unequivocally rejecting the possible use of force option that exists because "humanitarian options" are much better.

First off, no humanitarian options are going to exist for the Kurds when they are straight up ethnically cleansed by ISIS. There won't be anyone to give humanitarian aid to. So, supporting the intervention with combat air strikes, intelligence support or any other type of second-line support to ensure that the one actual stable nation/state in the region (Kurdistan) actually stays afloat is quite reasonable.

Mission creep is definitely a serious issue, and always has been. But to pretend that the solution to mission creep is not to do anything at all is disingenuous.

On that note, Justin just gave a speech on what Canada's role in Iraq probably should be. He can't really comment on what it definitely should be because no one in Canada outside the PMO actually knows anything about the mission.

My French is embarrassing, and I was inturrupted a few times, but he seemed pretty firmly on Canada not having a combat role whatsoever. Sorry swagger!

Unless I met the part where he said we should stick every able-bodied Canadian on the front lines, the Liberal strategy is to stay militarily in a support role - he mentioned transport, medical aid and training specifically - as well as humanitarian and political aid.

That all seems pretty reasonable to me, and I've always thought that's where our military intervention in the middle east should end.

Edit: Also, couldn't a strong argument be made that the west's lovely bombing tactics made ISIS a thing in the first place? Maybe we could just stop blowing up countries with less money than ours?

egg tats has issued a correction as of 17:52 on Oct 3, 2014

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:48

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

swagger like us posted:

My point on the possible intervention into Iraq isn't to paint a middle-of-the-road fallacy here where we have warmongering hawks on one side, and naive doves on the other and that the "answer is somewhere in the middle". My point is that I don't think its fair to criticize the Liberals on not, as that one poster suggested, unequivocally rejecting the possible use of force option that exists because "humanitarian options" are much better.

First off, no humanitarian options are going to exist for the Kurds when they are straight up ethnically cleansed by ISIS. There won't be anyone to give humanitarian aid to. So, supporting the intervention with combat air strikes, intelligence support or any other type of second-line support to ensure that the one actual stable nation/state in the region (Kurdistan) actually stays afloat is quite reasonable.

Mission creep is definitely a serious issue, and always has been. But to pretend that the solution to mission creep is not to do anything at all is disingenuous.

The concern with ISIS is not really mission creep so much as it is mission gallop. Harper has committed us to six months but all the words coming out of everyone's mouth in the US, UK, and everywhere else is that anyone fighting against ISIS should be prepared for a fight measured in months or years, not weeks, and the anglosphere press is all-but calling for a full-on reinvasion of Iraq, once a decade, like clockwork.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:52

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

bring back poutine chat

# ? Oct 3, 2014 17:59

swagger like us: Oct 27, 2005; Don't mind me. We must protect rapists and misogynists from harm. If they're innocent they must not be named. Surely they'll never harm their sleeping, female patients. Watch me defend this in great detail. I am not a mens rights activist either.

senae posted:

On that note, Justin just gave a speech on what Canada's role in Iraq probably should be. He can't really comment on what it definitely should be because no one in Canada outside the PMO actually knows anything about the mission.

My French is embarrassing, and I was inturrupted a few times, but he seemed pretty firmly on Canada not having a combat role whatsoever. Sorry swagger!

Unless I met the part where he said we should stick every able-bodied Canadian on the front lines, the Liberal strategy is to stay militarily in a support role - he mentioned transport, medical aid and training specifically - as well as humanitarian and political aid.

That all seems pretty reasonable to me, and I've always thought that's where our military intervention in the middle east should end.

Edit: Also, couldn't a strong argument be made that the west's lovely bombing tactics made ISIS a thing in the first place? Maybe we could just stop blowing up countries with less money than ours?

Not really, the conflict has more to do with hundreds of years old tensions built from the Ottoman empire days, which then got sparked by recent ethnic conflict thanks to the USA. Our bombing tactics had nothing to do with making "ISIS a thing". ISIS just has really strong information ops and funding by certain Gulf states that enable it to get mass popularity.

By "support" role I mean combat support. For example, sending advisors, intelligence support for targeting and air strikes. I don't consider air strikes a "combat role", a combat role is actual infantryman on the ground looking to hold ground. Anything else is just combat support, i.e. force multipliers to enable Kurdish and Iraqi forces to push back ISIS.

Just because this was fueled by the previous Iraq conflict doesn't mean its not a worthwhile endeavour now to try and stabilize the country to give it a chance to survive against extremist genocidal islamists. The question is what role can we give, and what's the best role. I don't see why humanitarian and force options have to be mutually exclusive, in fact you would want both in any likely scenario.

edit: Also reading through Trudeau's criticism, I am mostly in support of what he is saying. The PM has done a really bad job of selling this to the public, and convincing the public why CF-18s would be necessary. But, I also agree that the whole "whipping out" comments is pretty childish to just suggest that a possible Canadian contribution of military aircraft that would put men in harm's way is only being done as an ego thing is sort of making light of a serious issue.

The strategic and tactical employment of air power is, despite what Trudeau thinks, not just some flippant ego stroking endeavor. Discussing air power's merits in actual terms of efficiency, usefulness, applicability etc. is all fine and good but making stupid jokes is pretty low for Trudeau here.

swagger like us has issued a correction as of 18:13 on Oct 3, 2014

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:04

xilni: Feb 26, 2014

So can we take a stance on Ebola in Canada panic yet since you know it's supposed to be creeping northward from Dallas and now Washington DC. :derp:

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:25

Mordecai: May 18, 2003; Known throughout the world! Chop people's head off to the ground! Angry eyes that frighten people! Dragon among humans, king of dragons... Manchurian Derp Deity, Ha Che'er.

vyelkin posted:

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, and alleged kitten eater, demonstrating his party's new approach to attack ads against Justin Trudeau.

I think you mean Canada's Founding Party!

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:26

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

xilni posted:

So can we take a stance on Ebola in Canada panic yet since you know it's supposed to be creeping northward from Dallas and now Washington DC.

My stance is "it's stupid as gently caress to panic," seen as how Canadian health authorities have already been dealing with suspected cases a drat sight better than the idiots in Dallas dealt with an actual case. As far as I know, the case in DC is only suspected at this point anyway, and everything pretty much looks like Ebola until you get into the more advanced stages of the disease.

I'm still more worried about a bad flu, to be honest with you.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:29

xilni: Feb 26, 2014

PT6A posted:

My stance is "it's stupid as gently caress to panic," seen as how Canadian health authorities have already been dealing with suspected cases a drat sight better than the idiots in Dallas dealt with an actual case. As far as I know, the case in DC is only suspected at this point anyway, and everything pretty much looks like Ebola until you get into the more advanced stages of the disease.

I'm still more worried about a bad flu, to be honest with you.

Yes yes, but bleeding out of your eyes and stuff

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:30

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

swagger like us posted:

Not really, the conflict has more to do with hundreds of years old tensions built from the Ottoman empire days, which then got sparked by recent ethnic conflict thanks to the USA. Our bombing tactics had nothing to do with making "ISIS a thing". ISIS just has really strong information ops and funding by certain Gulf states that enable it to get mass popularity.

By "support" role I mean combat support. For example, sending advisors, intelligence support for targeting and air strikes. I don't consider air strikes a "combat role", a combat role is actual infantryman on the ground looking to hold ground. Anything else is just combat support, i.e. force multipliers to enable Kurdish and Iraqi forces to push back ISIS.

Just because this was fueled by the previous Iraq conflict doesn't mean its not a worthwhile endeavour now to try and stabilize the country to give it a chance to survive against extremist genocidal islamists. The question is what role can we give, and what's the best role. I don't see why humanitarian and force options have to be mutually exclusive, in fact you would want both in any likely scenario.

edit: Also reading through Trudeau's criticism, I am mostly in support of what he is saying. The PM has done a really bad job of selling this to the public, and convincing the public why CF-18s would be necessary. But, I also agree that the whole "whipping out" comments is pretty childish to just suggest that a possible Canadian contribution of military aircraft that would put men in harm's way is only being done as an ego thing is sort of making light of a serious issue.

The strategic and tactical employment of air power is, despite what Trudeau thinks, not just some flippant ego stroking endeavor. Discussing air power's merits in actual terms of efficiency, usefulness, applicability etc. is all fine and good but making stupid jokes is pretty low for Trudeau here.

So, again, what actual benefit to anyone in either Canada or Iraq does Canada's involvement in a combat (support) role provide? What exactly will be accomplished by Canada's presence other than a minor defraying of the costs of the operations between another party?

And "whipping out" is an excellent rhetorical device, since there don't appear to be any significant reasons for Canada to be entering this conflict in any kind of combat related role.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:36

egg tats: Apr 3, 2010

swagger like us posted:

words

We spent a decade destabilizing Iraq by dropping bombs on it, forgive me for not assuming that we can restabalize it by doing the same.

Trudeau implying that Stephen Harper is only pledging our forces because of his ego is fine, because the one way he pledged our help was probably the most expensive, least helpful possible way he could have found. America is very good at bombing people, and they have a lot of planes to drop those bombs. They got this.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:43

BGrifter: Mar 16, 2007; Winner of Something Awful PS5 thread's Posting Excellence Award June 2022

Congratulations!

xilni posted:

Yes yes, but bleeding out of your eyes and stuff

Don't worry, I think the Atlas Shrugged movie is already out of theaters. :rimshot:

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:45

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

infernal machines posted:

So, again, what actual benefit to anyone in either Canada or Iraq does Canada's involvement in a combat (support) role provide? What exactly will be accomplished by Canada's presence other than a minor defraying of the costs of the operations between another party?

And "whipping out" is an excellent rhetorical device, since there don't appear to be any significant reasons for Canada to be entering this conflict in any kind of combat related role.

If we assume that bombing ISIS positions in Iraq is a good idea then why shouldn't Canada be involved? Even if we only play a minor role, the fact we're putting planes presumably means that some equivalent number of American or British planes can stay on the ground longer, saving those country's resources.

That having been said I think the real problem here is that these military interventions always seem like a dire necessity or really good idea at the beginning, but somehow they almost always turn out terribly. Pretty much the only possible exception I can think of is, maybe, the French invasion of Mali. But in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. it seems like getting Western military forces involved in the Middle East really doesn't improve the situation.

Ultimately it's a tough call but it seems like at some point as a country we just need to swear off loving around with other country's internal affairs unless we're going to help them by sending actual aid or building up the infrastructure of the country.

swagger like us posted:

Not really, the conflict has more to do with hundreds of years old tensions built from the Ottoman empire days, which then got sparked by recent ethnic conflict thanks to the USA.

There would be no ISIS without the 2003 invasion (though it's also worth thinking about the devastating effect that 10 years of sanctions had on the Iraqi economy and people, or the Iran Iraq war that the US actively encouraged back in the 1980s). The clusterfuck in the middle east is a product of past American actions, not some timeless middle eastern ethnic blood-lust.

Guess what? If you bombed, starved and then eventually invaded any country and smashed it apart as thoroughly as America smashed apart Iraq between 1991 and 2014 then similar ethnic conflicts would flourish, and probably some people in the invading country would then try to claim that these ethnic conflicts were the real cause of the fighting rather than, you know, the massive invasion.

Saying that the conflict "has more to do with hundreds of years [of] old tensions" is basically just apologism for America's massive gently caress up, though perhaps you're not doing that consciously. It's also a way of subtly implying that all the problems with the middle east come from its internal culture and history, which lets you frame it as some barbarous backwater that requires foreign military intervention, which conveniently helps justify further invasions and attacks.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:46

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

swagger like us posted:

By "support" role I mean combat support. For example, sending advisors, intelligence support for targeting and air strikes. I don't consider air strikes a "combat role", a combat role is actual infantryman on the ground looking to hold ground. Anything else is just combat support, i.e. force multipliers to enable Kurdish and Iraqi forces to push back ISIS.

Air strikes not actually being a combat role seems like a fairly obtuse opinion to have, and makes it a bit tough to really take what you have to say seriously.

By that logic, no one at all (other than the Kurds that don't wish to be genocided) are engaged in "combat operations". If you do something that directly ends the life of another combatant, you are in combat.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:50

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

The real question for me is what the hell to do once the bombing stops. Say we wipe ISIS off the face of the planet and create a power vacuum in that part of Iraq and Syria. What then? Do we just leave again and say "job done" until we get called back in to bomb the Shia militias that start ethnic cleansing Sunnis in response to ISIS atrocities? Do we depose Assad and start nation-building in Syria as well, just in case he decides to take retributive action against people in current ISIS territory? Do we continue arming the 'moderate' Syrian opposition and then act all shocked when ten years from now some splinter group that originated there flies a plane into the Empire State Building? Do we reoccupy Iraq all over again to prevent a new ISIS from emerging with funding from wealthy Saudis and Gulf state princes, because we didn't go after the people actually financing the rise of ISIS? Do we arm and support the Kurds, sparking tensions with Baghdad and Ankara? There is no loving exit strategy, once again, we're just thinking with our bombs because we have an excuse to use a bunch of expensive military hardware and perpetuate the Western military-industrial-legislative complex. America is just going to keep invading Iraq every ten years until the end of loving time, and if the Conservatives are in power when they decide to do it we'll be 100% along for the ride. We got lucky that we weren't involved last time, and this time we seem to be jumping in head first with glee that we finally get to tag along on America's righteous crusade to rid the world of the nebulous concept of Islamism.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:52

Chamale: Jul 11, 2010; I'm helping!

Helsing posted:

That having been said I think the real problem here is that these military interventions always seem like a dire necessity or really good idea at the beginning, but somehow they almost always turn out terribly. Pretty much the only possible exception I can think of is, maybe, the French invasion of Mali. But in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. it seems like getting Western military forces involved in the Middle East really doesn't improve the situation.

Ultimately it's a tough call but it seems like at some point as a country we just need to swear off loving around with other country's internal affairs unless we're going to help them by sending actual aid or building up the infrastructure of the country.

I think the NATO intervention improved the Libyan situation, since the war there has killed fewer people than the Syrian Civil War. It didn't become peaceful after the rebels killed Gaddafi (with French help), but the alternative was for Gaddafi to continue massacring the rebels. I think the key is to help the Kurds win their war against ISIS, since Kurdistan is one enclave of relative peace and stability in the whole mess that is Iraq and Syria.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:52

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Helsing posted:

If we assume that bombing ISIS positions in Iraq is a good idea then why shouldn't Canada be involved? Even if we only play a minor role, the fact we're putting planes presumably means that some equivalent number of American or British planes can stay on the ground longer, saving those country's resources.

I don't believe that committing Canadian soldiers and resources should be done solely to lighten the burden on our allies' pocketbooks. In fact that seems to be a rather perverse view to take.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 18:59

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

A good OP, a good discussion, a good thread.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:12

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

AATREK CURES KIDS posted:

I think the NATO intervention improved the Libyan situation, since the war there has killed fewer people than the Syrian Civil War. It didn't become peaceful after the rebels killed Gaddafi (with French help), but the alternative was for Gaddafi to continue massacring the rebels. I think the key is to help the Kurds win their war against ISIS, since Kurdistan is one enclave of relative peace and stability in the whole mess that is Iraq and Syria.

Maybe. I honestly don't have enough knowledge of Libya to make any intelligent comments here. It seems like we basically just backed one alliance of factions to overthrow the existing regime (back by its own alliance of factions) and now the country is way less stable than before without any obvious benefits to the majority of Libyans.

But like I said I'm no expert here which is why my opinions on this subject are so wishy-washy.

infernal machines posted:

I don't believe that committing Canadian soldiers and resources should be done solely to lighten the burden on our allies' pocketbooks. In fact that seems to be a rather perverse view to take.

If you believe that bombing ISIS will make the region more stable or head off a massive humanitarian crisis then presumably that is the reason you'd want Canada to get involved, not just because you want to save America a bit of money. I agree that commiting military resources solely to make life a bit easier for America would be a bad policy but things look a bit different if you actually think that bombing ISIS would legitimately benefit the region. Personally I have no clue whether it would or not, but since the involved countries have such a bad track record here I'm reflexively sceptical.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:14

xilni: Feb 26, 2014

AATREK CURES KIDS posted:

I think the NATO intervention improved the Libyan situation, since the war there has killed fewer people than the Syrian Civil War. It didn't become peaceful after the rebels killed Gaddafi (with French help), but the alternative was for Gaddafi to continue massacring the rebels. I think the key is to help the Kurds win their war against ISIS, since Kurdistan is one enclave of relative peace and stability in the whole mess that is Iraq and Syria.

This is really the only good thing that can come out of this. Only worry is it'll start poo poo in parts of Iran and Turkey when they see what they can achieve in Iraq.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:16

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Helsing posted:

If you believe that bombing ISIS will make the region more stable or head off a massive humanitarian crisis then presumably that is the reason you'd want Canada to get involved, not just because you want to save America a bit of money. I agree that commiting military resources solely to make life a bit easier for America would be a bad policy but things look a bit different if you actually think that bombing ISIS would legitimately benefit the region. Personally I have no clue whether it would or not, but since the involved countries have such a bad track record here I'm reflexively sceptical.

The thing is, even if we believe bombing ISIS targets will improve their lot somehow, doesn't it still make more sense for us to commit our resources to the aid and rebuilding side of the equation?

As in, if there's not a significant gap in the "coalition" (or whatever they're calling it this time) caused by our absence, then why commit Canadian lives and Canadian dollars until we can do actual good with them?

# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:19

pokeyman: Nov 26, 2006; That elephant ate my entire platoon.

Great OP. To pick a nit,

vyelkin posted:

Jim Prentice, formerly of federal politics, is now the Premier of Alberta and is currently running for a seat as an MPP in a byelection.

Alberta has MLAs, not MPPs. Presumably because trivial regional differences are very important.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:24

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

I think it's stupid that the west is getting involved at al (though not because I don't think ISIS should be bombed, I assure you). The US should say to all the countries over there: "Hey, remember all those weapons we sold you? Time for you to use them and clean up your own poo poo for once!"

ISIS does very, very much deserve to be bombed to smithereens, but we shouldn't be the ones to do it. We (this is to say, broadly, the Western countries behind this current operation) should coerce our allies in the region into doing it by themselves.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 08:16

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

pokeyman posted:

Great OP. To pick a nit,

Alberta has MLAs, not MPPs. Presumably because trivial regional differences are very important.

Fixed, thanks. I can never keep straight which provinces do and don't have MPPs/MLAs.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 19:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Canadian Politics: Orange is the new government

«‹›648 »