# Anyone watch the Liberal Leadership Speeches?



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

This is the first time I have heard Michael Ignatieff speak more than few words.

He dances very well. His credentials are incredible. He really did get the crowd going.

Rae took a play out of the Bill Clinton book and was the only candidate to speak without a tele-prompter. He did well, but seemed to go into brief trances, like his brain (an admittedly big one) was stuck.


Kennedy was good, but outclassed by the front runners.

Dion doesn't "present well" and misclculated on the length of his speech. He was cut off with a couple of crucial points left to make. He was clearly disapointed. 

Ken Dryden spoke well also, but of course is not really a contender.




The best speach of the night in my opinion was Ignatieff. He has a spark.




Tomorrow will be interesting. It's anybody's to win.


----------



## mick7 (Mar 20, 2006)

I try not to pay any attention to the 'Liberal' (or any others) if anyone cares.


----------



## hoser (Feb 2, 2006)

Well it looks like we have another Quebecer as head of the Liberal Party since Dion won the leadership.

I couldn't really be bothered to watch the convention since I couldn't identify with any of the candidates. 
In every interview I've seen and heard, Ignatieff has come across as arrogant and condescending.

I don't think it really matters who wins, we're going into another election where the canadian people are voting someone out instead of voting someone in.


----------



## nine (Apr 23, 2006)

I can't believe that Dion won, but I'm glad he did. Rae just had too much baggage in Ontario for my tastes and Ignatieff really annoyed me. He's lived in the US for too long for me to take him seriously. What has he done for Canada?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Well based on the speeches I was hoping Ignatieff would win. I don't care that he's lived outside of Canada for a period. He's the smartest one of the bunch and frankly they all have impressive credentials.

I hope Dion has what it takes to boot Harper and the neo cons out of power before they do any more damage.


----------



## nine (Apr 23, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I hope Dion has what it takes to boot Harper and the neo cons out of power before they do any more damage.


Me too. I think it's great that Dion is so into environmental issues. Hopefully he'll be able to counter some of the bad moves that the conservatives have made in that area. I think it's shameful how they've decided not to take any action and am tired of hearing people say stuff like "Oh, well China pollutes way more than we do!". Who freakin' cares? It's about us taking responsibility for our pollution, not deciding that we're off the hook because someone pollutes more than we do. 

Anyway, Dion seems like a feisty dude, which is cool.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

hoser said:


> I don't think it really matters who wins, we're going into another election where the canadian people are voting someone out instead of voting someone in.


...good point. unfortunately, i think its simply the fact that good leaders are very, very rare.

if only harper was a liberal! i disagree with much of his policies, but i think he is a strong "leader".

i'm relieved that neither ignatief nor rae won. they simply have too much baggage, and would have been sitting ducks for the conservatives in the next election.

kennedy may be the guy to watch, further down the road.

in the short term, i think dion will prove to be a good choice.

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

hoser said:


> Well it looks like we have another Quebecer as head of the Liberal Party since Dion won the leadership.
> 
> I couldn't really be bothered to watch the convention since I couldn't identify with any of the candidates.
> In every interview I've seen and heard, Ignatieff has come across as arrogant and condescending.
> ...



It matters to me and I for one will be voting FOR the Liberals as much as against the reformers.

As for Ignatieff, if I had a brain like his it might be difficult to relate to the average person. I suppose you could say the same for Rae.


Anyway, even if Canadians DO vote against Harper, that's fine. Better late than never.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I prefer the Libertarian party. The big parties have ****ed us over for too long. There's not much difference between the big parties, its time to evolve. I also like that there is no flip flopping with the Libertarians, all decisions are based on their rules of principle........


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> I prefer the Libertarian party. The big parties have ****ed us over for too long. There's not much difference between the big parties, its time to evolve. I also like that there is no flip flopping with the Libertarians, all decisions are based on their rules of principle........



While you could argue that there may not be "much difference" between the big parties in terms of their mechanisms and bad habits, surely you can see that one party is very right while the other is just left of center.

There are clear differences to me. I want Canada to move forward not backward.


----------



## Mahogany Martin (Mar 2, 2006)

Dion IMO has half of what it takes to move Canada forward; he's a dedicated politician, he knows his stuff and so on. But as you stated in your opening of this thread Milkman, he does not "present well".

His problem is the language barrier. You not only learn a language, you learn a culture. He CAN speak English (somewhat) but he lacks the wherewithals of the English culture which is the majority for this country and is a major asset for a leader on the global political arena. It takes away some of his credibility and may prevent him from being influencial on world's major issues. And he looks a little goofy too.

I could see him as a cabinet minister assigned to an important portfolio but I'm blown away that they chose him as a leader.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> I prefer the Libertarian party. The big parties have ****ed us over for too long. There's not much difference between the big parties, its time to evolve. I also like that there is no flip flopping with the Libertarians, all decisions are based on their rules of principle........



...which are?

my impression of libertarian principles from chatting with americans is that's kind of an every man for himself, survival of the fittest kind of non-government party.

-dh


----------



## keefsdad (Feb 7, 2006)

If Ignatief's so smart why can't he get his foot out of his mouth?
I was rooting for Kennedy, but Dion seems all right.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"You say tomato..."*



david henman said:


> ...which are?
> 
> my impression of libertarian principles from chatting with americans is that's kind of an every man for himself, survival of the fittest kind of non-government party.
> 
> -dh


This is where the confusion always starts, David. History books and dictionaries may have one definition of a word but common usage quite another. Even worse, what's common usuage in one region may be something very different in another. If you're not careful to be very precise folks may completely misunderstand your meaning.

It's like how every few years someone will pop up in the media suggesting that because English has some illogical spellings we should standardize all spelling phonetically. This is obviously ridiculous. Whose phonetics should we use? Texan? Newfie? (The last is my choice!) it never occurs to such people that to someone else it's THEM who has an accent!

American survivalists stole the word "libertarian" as an emotional drape to their philosophies of shotguns, bunkers and anti-Washington. Nothing at all to do with the Libertarian Party. It's like how the meaning of "gay" has been hijacked.

Libertarians are actually closer in philosophy to the classic definition of a Liberal. That is: rights of the individual, less government meddling, the right of a citizen to expect protection of his life and property...with equal emphasis on responsibilities of being a citizen in a society. 

Of course, the modern Liberal party hasn't practiced such views in decades if you read by its actions. Neither have the other parties been true to the dictionary. It's all about wearing a different jersey but the team is often very much the same - opportunistic and pragmatic about how to get votes. The NDP tends to hold more to their principles but unfortunately their principles tend to be more emotional than practical. You know: "no child should go hungry" but very weak on how this can be practically accomplished. No wonder the Greens are finding it easy to usurp the NDP on issues like the environment and sustainability.

If you believe that modern Liberals still cherish the rights of individuals then go spend a night in Caledonia. You can't fly a Canadian flag too close to the native protestors without being charged but a kilometre and a half away a native can steal a flag in full view of several OPP cruisers without an officer even getting out of his vehicle.

I feel much in common with the Libertarian Party but have never felt them to be a practical alternative. Up till now they've tended to be made up mostly of academic types who debate over old philosophy books and don't really understand how to become a serious contending party. Manning started a new party and although it may not of been your cup of tea it garnered MILLIONS of votes astonishly quickly! When Dion stands before a camera and says that the values of the Liberal Party are the same as the overwhelming majority of Canadians I'm poleaxed by the arrogance. He's essentially saying that if you don't agree with his party then you are un-Canadian. What God gave him the rock tablets on the mountaintop?

We seem to have gotten away from the old hippie belief that everyone is entitled to their opinions and views as long as they respect those of others. I've been sadly dismayed for years about how when I talk with many Liberal and NDP folks they take as an article of faith that if you vote differently then you must be evil or at least, very uneducated and misinformed. I never get solid reasons in the argument. Just emotional jingoism.

Anyhow, just FYI on defining Canadian Libertarians.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Mahogany Martin said:


> Dion IMO has half of what it takes to move Canada forward; he's a dedicated politician, he knows his stuff and so on. But as you stated in your opening of this thread Milkman, he does not "present well".
> 
> His problem is the language barrier. You not only learn a language, you learn a culture. He CAN speak English (somewhat) but he lacks the wherewithals of the English culture which is the majority for this country and is a major asset for a leader on the global political arena. It takes away some of his credibility and may prevent him from being influencial on world's major issues. And he looks a little goofy too.
> 
> I could see him as a cabinet minister assigned to an important portfolio but I'm blown away that they chose him as a leader.



Well frankly not presenting well and not speaking English smoothly didn't seem to hinder Cretien's success and I doubt it will impact Dion too much either. Prersonally I liked Kennedy and Ignatieff but I have no real problem with Dion.

Harper is the poster child for goofy so I think it's a wash.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*Goofy?*



Milkman said:


> Well frankly not presenting well and not speaking English smoothly didn't seem to hinder Cretien's success and I doubt it will impact Dion too much either. Prersonally I liked Kennedy and Ignatieff but I have no real problem with Dion.
> 
> Harper is the poster child for goofy so I think it's a wash.


"Goofy"? Well, he is a politician, after all. At least he doesn't talk to imaginary homeless people in imaginary bars, like Chretien. Or see burning crosses on lawns all over a riding, like Hedy Fry in B.C.

Dion thinks the way to reduce greenhouse gases is to buy emission credits from third world countries, with no thought of an accountability mechanism to be sure the money goes on anti-pollution measures and not on guns and/or nuclear weapons programs instead. It wouldn't surprise me that if he was ever in power he would buy emission credits from the rulers of Sudan, enabling them to kill a few more thousands in Darfur. Not because he has no heart but because he'd never think of checking out what happens after he buys those credits. He's a university prof, for cripes sakes! By definition he's an academic, with a highly intelligent grasp of his "book-learning" and little or no "hands-on" background. It's like the old definition of an engineer and a technician. The first has a vision that something could work but it's the tech who makes it possible in the real world. Think I'm exaggerating? Go read the Kyoto Accord for yourself. 

At least Harper wants to actually reduce our OWN emissions, which is more than Dion's party can claim. His timetable is a little long but the claim that his bill does nothing until 2050 is an out and out lie. Anyone can read the Bill for themselves. Reporters would rather twist the truth to sell more papers and the people that don't like Harper in the first place are the LAST people that would want to read the Bill for themselves! Much more fun to jump on that 2050 date. I defy anyone to come up with any math that showed that under Dion's watch we had any hope of even coming close to our promises without either shutting down over half of our industry or spending billions on "foreign aid" emissions "credits. One and one makes two and not three, no matter what your politics.

I'm not defending Harper. He's my choice only because he smells the least, to my nose. You're entitled to your faith in Liberal choices but before they'd get my vote they'll have to do a lot better than offering to make me feel warm, fuzzy and perhaps a little snobbishly superior.

It might surprise you but I'm looking more and more to the Greens. They still have too many artsies with opinions on scientific issues when they couldn't put a new plug on a lamp but more and more they're attracting people from practical backgrounds. In another election or two things could get interesting, especially for the NDP. Those poor folks have never attracted rocket scientists and seem incapable of ever evolving with the times. Their own Jim Laxer gave a report over 20 years ago pointing out how they had become dinosaurs and had better get with it. They totally ignored him and cheerfully went out to ride bicycles in winter snowstorms, saving the unborn baby whales from nuclear proliferation and drunk drivers, enabling the whales to grow up to eat all the baby seals they could want without all that stress that made them release atmospheric amounts of methane...

If the NDP doesn't wake up and smell the coffee the Greens are going to eat them for breakfast...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> This is where the confusion always starts, David. History books and dictionaries may have one definition of a word but common usage quite another. Even worse, what's common usuage in one region may be something very different in another. If you're not careful to be very precise folks may completely misunderstand your meaning.
> 
> It's like how every few years someone will pop up in the media suggesting that because English has some illogical spellings we should standardize all spelling phonetically. This is obviously ridiculous. Whose phonetics should we use? Texan? Newfie? (The last is my choice!) it never occurs to such people that to someone else it's THEM who has an accent!
> 
> ...


...thanks, bill. i agree that liberal policies too often end up as feel good legislations.

although i despise what conservative politics has become, especially in the USA where its all moral hypocrisy and hate and enemies and evil, i am finding more and more that i like the essence of conservative politics, IF they were turned upside down. in other words, sure, lets make it every man for himself, survival of the fittest, but ONLY after we have levelled the playing field and provided free education and health care for every individual.

i also believe in individual accountability: YOU make a mess, YOU clean it up. you father a child, that child is your responsibility in every aspect until it is of legal age and self supporting. you, as a civil servant, squander tax dollars on a carribean vacation, you pay back every penny. you steal a car and cause $100,000 damages, that debt follows you to your grave and then gets passed on to your children. you run a stop sign and t-bone a car killing family members, you are CRIMINALLY responsible.

etc...

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> you steal a car and cause $100,000 damages, that debt follows you to your grave and then gets passed on to your children.
> etc...
> 
> 
> ...



Wow David. I wouldn't expect this from you. Sins of the father eh?


I will support any party who wants to support same sex marriage, legalization of marijuana, PEACE and which has a hope of winning.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"Son of a gun!"*



david henman said:


> ...thanks, bill. i agree that liberal policies too often end up as feel good legislations.
> 
> although i despise what conservative politics has become, especially in the USA where its all moral hypocrisy and hate and enemies and evil, i am finding more and more that i like the essence of conservative politics, IF they were turned upside down. in other words, sure, lets make it every man for himself, survival of the fittest, but ONLY after we have levelled the playing field and provided free education and health care for every individual.
> 
> ...


Geez louise, David! You're 90% a Libertarian! 

I agree with you about the corruption of the American conservative movement. Sadly, when conservative politicians down there were looking for a power base that was up for grabs they decided to appeal to the religious right and the social "conservatives". These are people who believe that first of all they are the "silent majority" and second that they have not just a right but an obligation to pass laws and hire cops to force people to live as the social "conservatives" feel is proper.

This is just about as bad as many liberals who believe that people should have the freedom to do whatever they wish with their lives - as long as it's a choice of the liberal trendy persuasion. It's like when there was all that controversy about some cartoons that offended radical muslims. By our society's standards this was a freedom of speech issue. We saw many liberal talking heads on the telly who said that of course we had freedom of speech but if it might offend someone we should not be allowed to express it! So essentially you have freedom of speech as long as everyone approves...

I guess there's a streak of human nature that just loves to tell their neighbour what to do. Ever spend some time with a militant anti-smoker? Or a true "bible thumper"? Given a chance, these types will cheerfully enact lifestyle laws for "your own good".

You describe civic responsibility, but sadly today we have a situation where NO ONE is ever responsible. It's society's fault, our ancestors' fault, bad upbringing (but the specific parents themselves are NOT to blame!) - always someone else but never YOU!

There's an old story about a pair of twin boys who had an abusive, alcoholic father. One boy grew up just the same and defended himself by saying "With a father like mine what would you expect?"

His brother took the straight and narrow and became a successful citizen and great neighbour. When asked why he gave the same reason as his brother!

It's not what life deals us so much as what we choose to make of it. I go livid when I hear someone blame crime on poverty. My folks were classed as poor and so were many of the kids I went to school with but we never even considered becoming criminals! It's really a very patronizing attitude, when you think about it. If you're poor then it's expected you'll turn out to be a crook...

Classic conservativism would never suggest every man for himself, David! Rather, a conservative would believe that everyone has a responsibility to his society. You might have heard stories about how young men from the upper crust in Britain when WWII broke out immediately signed up in droves to the military, especially as pilots even when there were such tremendous losses. Or captains of industry who took on government contracts at a salary of $1 a day. This really happened! It was a very conservative attitude that if your country had been very good to you then you owed it even your very life in return. We seem to have lost that on this side of the pond when rich American parents like Bill Clinton's father could keep them out of the draft and let all the poor kids stand in the line of fire. 

If anyone's interested I could come up with a few quotations defining classic liberalism, conservativism and socialism but it could get rather long and I'm bad enough at being long-winded. The important thing is that we really shouldn't label people with some cartoon political misconception of what they believe in. In academic debating circles it's called the "straw man" technique, where you build your opponent into a straw man that YOU define for his beliefs, making them extreme enough that he looks ridiculous. Like saying that Harper would do anything Bush asked of him. Harper has not done any such thing or is likely to. He HAS agreed with Bush on some issues and disagreed on others. Any Prime Minister of Canada is well aware that he is responsible for the well-being of Canada first and foremost. By building him into a straw man his political opponents can attract supporters with smartass humour or fears of betrayal, without ever having to take a logical position on an issue. They just have to say "Everyone knows a conservative will do this" or "Everyone knows a socialist will do that"...it's enough to make one cry.

I miss the Rhinoceros Party...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Wow David. I wouldn't expect this from you. Sins of the father eh?
> I will support any party who wants to support same sex marriage, legalization of marijuana, PEACE and which has a hope of winning.


..."peace" has become a dirty word, strangely enough. jack layton suggests talking to the enemy, and he is called an idiot.

however, i don't understand why our clear message to criminals is: "don't worry about the damage you do. if our justice system fails to get you off, we taxpayers will absorb the cost of rebuilding what you have destroyed. its the least we can do."

-dh


----------



## Mahogany Martin (Mar 2, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Well frankly not presenting well and not speaking English smoothly didn't seem to hinder Cretien's success and I doubt it will impact Dion too much either. Prersonally I liked Kennedy and Ignatieff but I have no real problem with Dion.
> 
> Harper is the poster child for goofy so I think it's a wash.


Presenting is one thing which he'll most likely improve with time. As far as his English goes, I meant that it is a cultural thing with Dion. Chretien spent decades in Ottawa before becoming prime minister. He had a strong accent but he thought in English (and he was/is a natural public speaker). Dion thinks in French and translates as he goes and this might get him in trouble sooner rather than later.

And he looks goofy to me especially when he becomes defensive.



david henman said:


> ..."peace" has become a dirty word, strangely enough. jack layton suggests talking to the enemy, and he is called an idiot.
> 
> however, i don't understand why our clear message to criminals is: "don't worry about the damage you do. if our justice system fails to get you off, we taxpayers will absorb the cost of rebuilding what you have destroyed. its the least we can do."
> 
> -dh


I totally agree with the principles of what you're saying dh but humans are just that: humans. Passing your criminal debts on to your children would most likely create lineages of hard core criminals.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ..."peace" has become a dirty word, strangely enough. jack layton suggests talking to the enemy, and he is called an idiot.
> 
> however, i don't understand why our clear message to criminals is: "don't worry about the damage you do. if our justice system fails to get you off, we taxpayers will absorb the cost of rebuilding what you have destroyed. its the least we can do."
> 
> -dh



Granted more emphasis needs to be placed on victims rights and tougher measures for violent crime, but holding an unborn child accountable for his father's crimes?


Are you sure you mean this?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Granted more emphasis needs to be placed on victims rights and tougher measures for violent crime, but holding an unborn child accountable for his father's crimes?Are you sure you mean this?


...yeah, i guess its neither feasible nor just. however, there must be some way to hold people accountable for the destruction they cause. it doesn't make sense to say "oh, well. don't worry, we'll pay for it."

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"It's all in the details..."*



david henman said:


> ..."peace" has become a dirty word, strangely enough. jack layton suggests talking to the enemy, and he is called an idiot.
> -dh


Jack was called an idiot not because of the nobility of his suggestion but the ignorance inherent in it. He advocated talking to enemies that had no interest in listening. The Taliban has one and only one goal - to regain control of Afghanistan and re-impose radical islamic law. That means women barred from schools, full burkhas, if a woman is raped SHE is stoned!...the whole nine yards. Add in terrorist training camps and all that goes with them. That's the way it was before and that's the way they want it to be again. This is proven by the Taliban's own words and actions. They are fanatical about it, by definition.

I would have loved to have seen Jack appointed as our emissary and sent over there to do the talking! I would feel sorry for his widow...

Diplomacy requires both sides to have an interest in talking. It is a futile effort if it is unilateral. That's just the sad truth. The only way you can make a fanatic listen is through force. I wish it weren't true but not just me but leaders all over the world would love to hear another way. You suggested talking, David. I agree with you as talking being a noble wish but do you have any suggestions likely to work with the Taliban? Or should we cut and run, abandoning the rank and file women and people of that poor country?

Besides, why should the Taliban do any talking? It looks like they might get the southern half of their country back anyway. In that area they seem to be slowly winning. Why should they talk?

Bush is a classic example of noble intentions that were poorly thought out, if at all. Look what he's done in Iraq! He's done far more harm to those poor people than Saddam! You may not agree with his initial reasons for invasion but it seems clear that he and his team truly thought that after they toppled Saddam the Iraqis would stage a huge parade with streamers and chili dogs, set up a new government modelled after that of Uncle Sam or at least Mother England and settle down to a life of KFC takeout and cable tv.

He never seemed to have had any actual plan on how this would be accomplished. He seemed to think all he had to do was oust Saddam and everything else would happen all by itself. We knew he was no rocket scientist when he disbanded the huge Iraqi army with no thought of where they would work or how they would feed their families. Did he think they would all quietly starve to death in their homes, without making any fuss or bother? This is as short-sighted as de-foliating poppy fields when the farmer has no other practical option to make a living and bring food to his wife and kids.

It's ALWAYS the details! And it's in the details where Jack Layton always seems to fall down. I've said many times that most folks agree with NDP goals. Who wouldn't? It's just that "if wishes were horses..." and that's all we ever hear from them - wishes! Never the details.

We saw the NDP attempt at details during the Rae reign some years ago in Ontario. A lot of folks are still hurting. My wife works for the City Health and she sees some of their bonehead moves every day. It was Rae's government that gave mentally incompetent people the right to refuse treatment or shelter. She sees the poor victims of that decision every day and it can tear your heart out. Sure saved the provincial government a lot of money being spent in mental hospitals, though! No wonder no subsequent government has ever changed things back. Cheap callous hypocrites, to my eyes. 

I'm not saying his NDP government wanted this to happen when they changed the laws. I'm saying they were too simple to see the eventual negative outcomes! They had their faith and they had the power. Now I see former Rae ministers on talk shows, trying to rewrite history so they don't look so bad.

To put it more simply, Idiot is as Idiot does! Not as the idiot feels or wishes. I'm obviously getting cranky in my dotage but I just don't have any patience anymore for policies that are confused with goals, no matter how noble. No brownie points for the "niceness" of your wishes but only if they come with the details properly worked out. There are a lot of people hurting out there and they deserve well thought out approaches that will work and be sustainable. Too often we witness results that can only be described as cruel.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...yeah, i guess its neither feasible nor just. however, there must be some way to hold people accountable for the destruction they cause. it doesn't make sense to say "oh, well. don't worry, we'll pay for it."
> 
> -dh



Well I agree, but until we develop the means to chase these people into the afterlife (if there IS such a thing) I guess their culpability ends when they stop breathing.

In the mean time, I'll be voting Liberal. Personally I'd like to see some of the NDP support come over to the Liberals. That may indeed happen if Dion plays his cards right. With the absorbtion of the PCs into the Reform party it's too easy for the right wingers to enjoy a divided left and march up the middle to victory.

Reality dictates that I vote strategically to an extent.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Jack was called an idiot not because of the nobility of his suggestion but the ignorance inherent in it.


...i just used jack as an example. anybody who suggests talking to the enemy is labelled an idiot.

they hate our freedoms, remember?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Jack was called an idiot not because of the nobility of his suggestion but the ignorance inherent in it. He advocated talking to enemies that had no interest in listening. The Taliban has one and only one goal - to regain control of Afghanistan and re-impose radical islamic law. That means women barred from schools, full burkhas, if a woman is raped SHE is stoned!...the whole nine yards. Add in terrorist training camps and all that goes with them. That's the way it was before and that's the way they want it to be again. This is proven by the Taliban's own words and actions. They are fanatical about it, by definition.


...and, as long as the rest of the world refuses to engage in dialog with them, nothing will change.

do you think they perceive themselves as the bad guys? evil? the enemy?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Bush is a classic example of noble intentions that were poorly thought out, if at all. Look what he's done in Iraq! He's done far more harm to those poor people than Saddam! You may not agree with his initial reasons for invasion but it seems clear that he and his team truly thought that after they toppled Saddam the Iraqis would stage a huge parade with streamers and chili dogs, set up a new government modelled after that of Uncle Sam or at least Mother England and settle down to a life of KFC takeout and cable tv.
> 
> He never seemed to have had any actual plan on how this would be accomplished. He seemed to think all he had to do was oust Saddam and everything else would happen all by itself. We knew he was no rocket scientist when he disbanded the huge Iraqi army with no thought of where they would work or how they would feed their families. Did he think they would all quietly starve to death in their homes, without making any fuss or bother?


...of course not. america sees itself as "the good guys". the world police.

the rest of the world? not so much.

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"I'm right, you're mistaken, he's crazy"*



david henman said:


> ...and, as long as the rest of the world refuses to engage in dialog with them, nothing will change.
> 
> do you think they perceive themselves as the bad guys? evil? the enemy?
> 
> -dh


Of course not! So what? The issue is whether they are willing to talk! Despite America's flaws she has always tended to lead with words and not bullets. The Taliban are a culture where at a wedding they fire AK47s into the air instead of tossing rice!

I'm not at all saying that we should never use diplomacy. I'm saying that it takes two to talk and until BOTH parties are willing to sit down at a table and SERIOUSLY discuss differences then it's a waste of time! When someone is shooting a gun out in the yard you can leave your door open for them to come inside and talk about how it's not the best idea but it is usually more practical to try to get the gun away from them first.

Again, I agree that we should never refuse to engage in dialogue. We just shouldn't sit there all alone at the table while people are getting hurt and killed outside.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"All generalizations are dangerous, including this one!"*



david henman said:


> ...of course not. america sees itself as "the good guys". the world police.
> 
> the rest of the world? not so much.
> 
> -dh


Not America. Bush!

All americans and all american presidents don't think the same. They may have a common culture and a concern for their own country's interests first and foremost but different presidents have had vastly different foreign policies over the years. What would you think of a Canadian prime minister who didn't act for Canada first?

Perhaps the last couple didn't, at least not very well.

As for being the world's police force, then why is it that Americans tend to be so isolationist? There are conspiracy theories that Roosevelt let Pearl Harbour be bombed so that Americans would change their minds and support entering the war.

If you look back a few decades it would seem that usually other countries ASK for American involvement! Usually because they don't want to commit any resources of their own.

I might agree with you as regards Viet Nam and Iraq, but these are only two of a LOT of other conflicts that have happened in the world.

It does seem to be true that America tends to think that the rest of the world wants to be like them but hey, how many free societies are madly rushing to embrace radical Islam?

How many West Germans risked death to get INTO East Germany? How many South Koreans sneak across the DMZ at night? How many mothers in Florida strap their kids on their backs and swim through the sharks to get TO Cuba?

I love my country first and foremost as much as any Canadian but often I think of us as like the Shire. You know, hobbits that think not only that they live in the best of all possible lands but that everywhere else is "queer as news from Bree!" Meanwhile the only reason their land is that way is because of the Rangers (American?) who patrol the lands outside of their borders, while they remain blissfully ignorant. When Sharky came in they just rolled over and caved. It took some hobbits who had learned outside ways to help them free themselves...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Not America. Bush!..


...it has been my personal experience that a lot of americans, mostly conservatives, see america as the greatest country in the world, meaning that all other countries are, therefore, inferior. don't get me wrong, i think america is a great country, and thank goodness at least half the population has an open mind. unfortunately, guns and violence are both a religion and a way of life to a huge portion of their citizenry. in my humble opinion, right wing america has a lot of catching up to do on the evolutionary timetable.

this could probably be construed as anti-american were it not for the fact that so many americans agree.

-dh


----------



## shad (May 4, 2006)

Just a few thoughts... 

Dion may not speak english well, but I'll wait and see how he performs before I judge him.

As for the Liberals, I have not forgiven them for their past sins, i.e. the sponsorship fiasco, and the gun registry (how many billions did that cost?)

I wanted fiscal responsibility from government so I voted Conservative, but now I'm PO'd at Harper for his lies about not touching our Income Trusts.

Finally to all the U.S. bashers out there, I am not an apologist for Bush in fact I think he is a total screw up, but having said that, I am supremely glad that we live next door to a world superpower. Life would be totally different for us otherwise.


----------



## nine (Apr 23, 2006)

That's been my experience as well, David.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

shad said:


> Finally to all the U.S. bashers out there, I am not an apologist for Bush in fact I think he is a total screw up, but having said that, I am supremely glad that we live next door to a world superpower. Life would be totally different for us otherwise.


...first of all, this isn't about US bashing. its about coming to the realization that viewing the world as good guys vs bad guys and using human slaughter as a means to solve disagreements may no longer be the best means to achieve whatever the hell it is we are trying to achieve.

we need to try and understand our so-called enemies, and they need to try and understand us.

we also need to fully comprehend the meaning of the word "evil".

to call suicide bombers evil, for example, is to completely misconstrue the meaning of the word.

paul bernardo was evil. drivers with a callous disregard for life and property are evil.

you can disagree with suicide bombers and islamic terrorists all you want (i certainly do) but you have to understand that they genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, according to their god, as much as canadian and american soldiers believe that they, too, are doing the right thing by their god/president/way of life etc.

-dh


----------



## nine (Apr 23, 2006)

I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims that think that Canadians and Canada's actions in Afghanistan are evil. Are we? The whole "us against them" thing is great for temporarily unifying people through having a common enemy (boogeyman), but it's a terrible way to view the world and try to bring peace.

Oops. There's that dirty word again, outing me as a weak-willed liberal.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I never heard of this Dion guy until he won the leadership, and last night on CBC was my first opportunity to hear him out, and I got to say, if thats the future of the Liberals, they are in serious trouble. He was supposed to answer people's questions about issues, and all he did was talk about how bad Stephan Harper is, how great he is, and show that he really has no understanding of the issues. He came accross as being kind of a yesman, tow the party line, smile for the camera and do what we say kind of guy. I've heard better repsonses to questions from Preston Manning.............


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*Evil is as evil does...*



david henman said:


> we need to try and understand our so-called enemies, and they need to try and understand us.
> 
> we also need to fully comprehend the meaning of the word "evil".
> 
> ...


David, I'm sorry but here we must agree to disagree. Suicide bombers often target innocents, women and children. It's NOT always "enemy soldiers" at all!

I don't care how such people feel. Anyone who targets innocents as cannon fodder for their cause is TRULY evil! I cannot respect their politics or accept their religion as an excuse.

I never respected that squad of American soldiers for the My Lei massacre and I can't excuse some suicide bomber for blowing up school buses or people just going about their lives shopping or eating at a restaurant.

Any "human" being who would commit such an act deserves only my hate and scorn! I would be perfectly happy if they all were made to take on a new career "pushing up wheat for the hungry!", as Mr. Mitchell sang.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> David, I'm sorry but here we must agree to disagree. Suicide bombers often target innocents, women and children. It's NOT always "enemy soldiers" at all!
> I don't care how such people feel. Anyone who targets innocents as cannon fodder for their cause is TRULY evil! I cannot respect their politics or accept their religion as an excuse.
> I never respected that squad of American soldiers for the My Lei massacre and I can't excuse some suicide bomber for blowing up school buses or people just going about their lives shopping or eating at a restaurant.
> Any "human" being who would commit such an act deserves only my hate and scorn! I would be perfectly happy if they all were made to take on a new career "pushing up wheat for the hungry!", as Mr. Mitchell sang.



...its a matter of degrees, bill. they are simply more extreme than the so-called "good guys". at the end of the day, they see us as evil, and vice versa. we can argue all day about who is "more evil". they hate us. we hate them. we don't care how they "feel", nor do they care how we "feel". they want us dead, we want them dead. they call for the death of all infidels, american conservatives call for the death of all muslims. they celebrate the death of americans, and american conservatives celebrate their deaths (htye do it publicly, american conservatives are far more discrete...). and so it goes....

the "men of peace" are silent, fearing ridicule and scorn in this era of hate and slaughter.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> I never heard of this Dion guy until he won the leadership, and last night on CBC was my first opportunity to hear him out, and I got to say, if thats the future of the Liberals, they are in serious trouble. He was supposed to answer people's questions about issues, and all he did was talk about how bad Stephan Harper is, how great he is, and show that he really has no understanding of the issues. He came accross as being kind of a yesman, tow the party line, smile for the camera and do what we say kind of guy. I've heard better repsonses to questions from Preston Manning.............


...i agree. the liberal tactic so far of simply attacking harper is going to backfire, especially among liberals. i'm no fan of a lot of harper's policy and rhetoric, but even as a liberal and ndp supporter, i recognize that he has the potential to be a strong leader, and appears to be growing into the job very quickly. his move to call the quebecois a nation may ultimately be seen as a stroke of genius, in that it shines a spotlight on the people rather than the geography or culture, and asks the question: who are you?

separatists need to be awfully careful how they answer that question...

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...its a matter of degrees, bill. they are simply more extreme than the so-called "good guys". at the end of the day, they see us as evil, and vice versa. we can argue all day about who is "more evil". they hate us. we hate them. we don't care how they "feel", nor do they care how we "feel". they want us dead, we want them dead. they call for the death of all infidels, american conservatives call for the death of all muslims. they celebrate the death of americans, and american conservatives celebrate their deaths (htye do it publicly, american conservatives are far more discrete...). and so it goes....
> 
> the "men of peace" are silent, fearing ridicule and scorn in this era of hate and slaughter.
> 
> -dh



The biggest difference is, the suicide bombers are doing it in their own countries. The Americans and their lackies are crapping all over other countries, in which they have no right to be present.

Whackos are whackos and there are an abundance of them on both sides.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*Dreams again...*



david henman said:


> ...its a matter of degrees, bill. they are simply more extreme than the so-called "good guys". at the end of the day, they see us as evil, and vice versa. we can argue all day about who is "more evil". they hate us. we hate them. we don't care how they "feel", nor do they care how we "feel". they want us dead, we want them dead. they call for the death of all infidels, american conservatives call for the death of all muslims. they celebrate the death of americans, and american conservatives celebrate their deaths (htye do it publicly, american conservatives are far more discrete...). and so it goes....
> 
> the "men of peace" are silent, fearing ridicule and scorn in this era of hate and slaughter.
> 
> -dh


I agree with how you describe the problem. If the "men of peace" were in power then we wouldn't have such problems! At least as long as those men could stay in power. Bad guys have no qualms about blowing them out of their way.

I disagree on what to do about the problem! If suicide bombers were open to realistic negotiations I would be in support. That doesn't seem to be the case. For that matter, if they were willing to stay in their own country I might support non-involvement but 9/11 proved that to be pointless. If the Twin Towers had never fallen Bush would not only never have gone to Afghanistan and perhaps Iraq but would probably have lost the next election to the Democrats.

And again, when someone threatens innocents I see no need to respect their beliefs. That's irrelevant. Survival dictates treating them for what their actions mean - a threat! 

I suspect we are very closely in agreement on the type of world we'd like to live in, David. It's just that I still haven't heard in this thread or elsewhere for that matter any practical way to make it happen. I said before that I just don't have much patience anymore for wishes. I see reports of innocents suffering in the news every day! The tragedy of Darfur just makes me sick. Maybe mankind is still just too immature. As the Metrons told Jim Kirk: "Maybe in a thousand years we can meet together..."


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> And again, when someone threatens innocents I see no need to respect their beliefs. That's irrelevant. Survival dictates treating them for what their actions mean - a threat!


...exactly! and if you hold the US to those same standards, it would mean imprisonment for george w bush and his gang.

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*No clicks*



david henman said:


> ...exactly! and if you hold the US to those same standards, it would mean imprisonment for george w bush and his gang.
> 
> -dh


Not many clicks from here gentlemen. Comparing a declared war that bombs primarily military targets first and only civilians as it pertains to support for their military with suicide bombers is a total non sequitur.

And sadly it would seem we're veering off into boring old Bush bashing and anti-americanism. If you got your way and hung George Bush I think you'd be surprised that the next day we wouldn't be living in Paradise.

When this starts to happen on this board I'm never quite sure if the other guy is serious or if I'm simply being trolled into a reaction.

Whatever, when someone goes in this direction I simply bail. It means the thread is about to become boring and pointless.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Not many clicks from here gentlemen. Comparing a declared war that bombs primarily military targets first and only civilians as it pertains to support for their military with suicide bombers is a total non sequitur.
> And sadly it would seem we're veering off into boring old Bush bashing and anti-americanism. If you got your way and hung George Bush I think you'd be surprised that the next day we wouldn't be living in Paradise.
> When this starts to happen on this board I'm never quite sure if the other guy is serious or if I'm simply being trolled into a reaction.
> Whatever, when someone goes in this direction I simply bail. It means the thread is about to become boring and pointless.


...no one will argue that the so-called terrorists are "worse". that they are more extreme. and that they are less likely to play by the rules. and that, because the US is supposedly more civilized, more educated, more enlightened and so on, we hold them to a higher standard. their unprovoked attack on iraq is going to haunt them for decades to come and will, undoubedtedly, come back to bite them big time.

i, for one, refuse to withhold criticism of the US and george bush for fear i might be accused of "boring old Bush bashing and anti-americanism".

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*Again, our differences are more subtle...*



david henman said:


> ...no one will argue that the so-called terrorists are "worse". that they are more extreme. and that they are less likely to play by the rules. and that, because the US is supposedly more civilized, more educated, more enlightened and so on, we hold them to a higher standard. their unprovoked attack on iraq is going to haunt them for decades to come and will, undoubedtedly, come back to bite them big time.
> 
> i, for one, refuse to withhold criticism of the US and george bush for fear i might be accused of "boring old Bush bashing and anti-americanism".
> 
> -dh


Hey I have no problem bashing Bush either, David. Often I've felt you to be right on in your complaints.

It's just that I feel it pointless to take a one-sided view, where your opponent is responsible for all that's bad and there's no error or responsibility on your own side. 

I support debate and discussion in the hope that it may in some small way contribute to eventual practical solutions. Too often we get short circuited with arrogance and smart ass "humour".

The world is full of real problems and too many hurting people. My beef with many on the "left" side is that they always seem to think that if they can pull a Warren Kinsella or that "Cavell" fellow (I may be mis-remembering his name) from Clinton's camp and be clever and witty in pointing out "rightwing" flaws *(whether real or imaginary) then that's the same thing as positive action in improving the world.

I don't do as much as I should myself, at least not monetarily. I'm too poor and have the demands of familyl. I do try to put paper and not coin in Sally Ann buckets and the like. I take no pride in having government safety nets paid out of taxes. In effect I'd be taking credit for work done with OTHER peoples' money! Anybody can let someone else do or pay for things. I see virtue in private charity.

And yes, I understand how you would expect the US to be held to a higher standard. What about Britain, France, Germany, Italy and even Canada? That being said, what excuses ANY human being from acts of evil? Why should I excuse Hamas and not Israel? The US and not Iran?

I thought we dealt with this concept nearly 60 years ago in Nuremburg...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Hey I have no problem bashing Bush either, David. Often I've felt you to be right on in your complaints.
> It's just that I feel it pointless to take a one-sided view, where your opponent is responsible for all that's bad and there's no error or responsibility on your own side.
> I support debate and discussion in the hope that it may in some small way contribute to eventual practical solutions. Too often we get short circuited with arrogance and smart ass "humour".
> The world is full of real problems and too many hurting people. My beef with many on the "left" side is that they always seem to think that if they can pull a Warren Kinsella or that "Cavell" fellow (I may be mis-remembering his name) from Clinton's camp and be clever and witty in pointing out "rightwing" flaws *(whether real or imaginary) then that's the same thing as positive action in improving the world.
> ...


...very thoughtful post, bill. in fact, it has left me at a loss for words.

:food-smiley-004: 

-dh


----------

