Bloc Quebecois Threatens to topple government
Up until now it has been the Bloc Quebecois that has helped save the Tories twice from possibly falling on a confidence motion (softwood lumber and the budget), but now they are threatening to pull the plug. While I am not sure of the exact reasons, I wonder if they are worried about Dion and realize he is a strong opponent who could gain big in Quebec, so they want to pull the plug before he has time to establish himself.
Regardless of their motivation, I would support such move provided it is done after Christmas since having an election campaign two holidays in a row is a little much. I believe Harper has tried to govern for too long like he has a majority, so he needs a clear message to either cooperate or be defeated. Perhaps with his falling poll numbers he might soften his stance now realizing his government could be defeated any day and there is no guarantee he would win the election. I also feel our Afghanistan mission has been poorly handled with all the focus on combat and very little on reconstruction. Rather than following the traditional peacekeeping approach, Harper seems to want to follow the Bush ideology of good vs. evil and war as the only solution to all problems. This needs to stop and if it requires a non-confidence motion to do it, then so be it. Some may say the Liberals are being hypocritical since they sent the soldiers to Afghanistan, but I should add only until the Spring of 2007, not until 2009 as Harper did. Some may say we shouldn't play politics with our men in uniform, but I ask how is this playing politics anymore than Harper's sham vote with only six hours of debate last spring or then Harper's tough we won't cut and run talk. I fully support our men and women in uniform and will never give them anything but my full support. But I do feel I have every right to question the government's reasoning for putting them there. Some will argue this is a NATO mission so as a NATO member we must be there, yet with the exception of United States, United Kingdom, and Netherlands, none of their other NATO countries are interested in going into the South and a full 1/3 of casualties have been Canadian so we are doing far more than our fair share. For those blaming more reluctant countries like France, Germany, Spain, and Italy, I say nonsense. Had the United States not invaded Iraq they would have had more than enough troops to do the job in Afghanistan, and I for one don't believe we should bail the US out for its misadventure in Iraq.
Regardless of their motivation, I would support such move provided it is done after Christmas since having an election campaign two holidays in a row is a little much. I believe Harper has tried to govern for too long like he has a majority, so he needs a clear message to either cooperate or be defeated. Perhaps with his falling poll numbers he might soften his stance now realizing his government could be defeated any day and there is no guarantee he would win the election. I also feel our Afghanistan mission has been poorly handled with all the focus on combat and very little on reconstruction. Rather than following the traditional peacekeeping approach, Harper seems to want to follow the Bush ideology of good vs. evil and war as the only solution to all problems. This needs to stop and if it requires a non-confidence motion to do it, then so be it. Some may say the Liberals are being hypocritical since they sent the soldiers to Afghanistan, but I should add only until the Spring of 2007, not until 2009 as Harper did. Some may say we shouldn't play politics with our men in uniform, but I ask how is this playing politics anymore than Harper's sham vote with only six hours of debate last spring or then Harper's tough we won't cut and run talk. I fully support our men and women in uniform and will never give them anything but my full support. But I do feel I have every right to question the government's reasoning for putting them there. Some will argue this is a NATO mission so as a NATO member we must be there, yet with the exception of United States, United Kingdom, and Netherlands, none of their other NATO countries are interested in going into the South and a full 1/3 of casualties have been Canadian so we are doing far more than our fair share. For those blaming more reluctant countries like France, Germany, Spain, and Italy, I say nonsense. Had the United States not invaded Iraq they would have had more than enough troops to do the job in Afghanistan, and I for one don't believe we should bail the US out for its misadventure in Iraq.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 6:47 PM
17 Comments:
Do you think all the parties have enough money to have another election at this point?
Personally, I don't know if Bloc will get supports from the Liberals.
I think calling an election for the winter/spring might be risky. I'd say lat spring like May might be a good idea. It's not a matter of money (the Liberals always have money lying around, something the PCs certainly don't), but rather a matter of pulling a "Stockwell Day" and boasting your electoral might to a pretty confidant government (even if it is a minority).
I think a reason Paul Martin lost was because he didn't look lik he was ever really in control of parliament. Stephen Harper, however, constantly looks and acts like he has a majority. This will have a postitive impact on voters this early on. While Ambrose and his sorry bunch of cabinet members are struggling to even LOOK like MPs, let along government officials, Harper always maintains his image as a squeeky clean micromanager.
Heck, with Chong quitting his post and sitting in the backbenches, Turner outright leaving, and the defeated Diane Haskett finding post-electoral woes in London North-Centre - all the opposition might have to do is give him enough time to drive away all of his cabinet and the remaining MPs to turn into independents. Eventually the Liberals will form the government due to simply sticking together (after Martin I never thought i'd say THAT) and or the government will be made up of the rebel conservative independents - which might not be a bad thing.
But ultimately, I feel the next election is the end of the CPC in government.
When Harper is sent back to the opposition (and then personally sent back to the NCC and the Fraser Insitiute since he won't be leader for much longer after that) I'll finally get to say that Canadians "rejected" them and their social-conservative vision.
Won't that feel good Miles?
Woosang - I don't know about the Bloc Quebecois or NDP, but the Liberals are in the black, so they do have enough money to fight an election.
Dylan - You might be right, we'll just have to wait and see. Certainly I don't think Harper will be in power for 10 years, even 5 years would be a surprise. I suspect he will go back to the NCC, although it would be interesting if he went to the Fraser Institute since they just brought Brian Tobin on, so he would have to part of an organization with a Liberal (the horror!)
I wouldn't say that Harper has focused on combat only and not reconstruction, he has just failed to articulate the reconstruction work our soldiers are currently doing in Afghanistan. I think were he more vocal on that front, the support for the mission would be somewhat higher.
The main reason I support the mission extension is that the original deadline of 2007 was optimistic- not necessarily the fault of the Liberals, people of all political stripes, in my opinion, underestimated the magntitude of this mission; however, it has become increasingly clear, with a few short months until the original deadline, that there is no hope in hell Afghanistan will achieve any sort of major stability or reconstruction.
I think my main point of disagreement here, however, is the argument that we are indirectly helping the US in Iraq, therefore we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. This is anti-Americanism to its finest point. To disagree with the mission in Iraq is one thing, and clearly they have neglected their Afghanistan responsibilities. At the same time, however, the fact of the matter is it's not as if they wouldn't have gone into Iraq had we not done our part in Afghanistan. So are we to just let the South fall to instability simply because we have a beef with the way Americans handle their foreign policy? If you want to articulate a solid reasoning for why we shouldn't be in Kandahar, it must be more substantial than "because it helps the Americans in Iraq".
I don't think the Bloc is scared of Dion. And they'd be horrified to vote with him to bring down the govt...at least right now.
This is just a wedge issue: Afghanistan is unpopular in Quebec and the Bloc hope to make Quebeckers more acutey aware of Harper's (actually, as they started it, the Liberals too) stance in favour of the war.
I wouldn't say that Harper has focused on combat only and not reconstruction, he has just failed to articulate the reconstruction work our soldiers are currently doing in Afghanistan. I think were he more vocal on that front, the support for the mission would be somewhat higher.
The soldiers maybe doing some re-construction, but the mission is not at all balanced, it is heavily tilted towards combat.
The main reason I support the mission extension is that the original deadline of 2007 was optimistic- not necessarily the fault of the Liberals, people of all political stripes, in my opinion, underestimated the magntitude of this mission; however, it has become increasingly clear, with a few short months until the original deadline, that there is no hope in hell Afghanistan will achieve any sort of major stability or reconstruction.
Having a 6 hour debate and passing a motion without knowing what the mission entailed and what its purpose was, was totally inappropriate. The motion should have been defeated IMO just to send a message to Harper that he needs to explain the mission to the public and consult with other parties and quit his secretive and divisive approach.
I think my main point of disagreement here, however, is the argument that we are indirectly helping the US in Iraq, therefore we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. This is anti-Americanism to its finest point. To disagree with the mission in Iraq is one thing, and clearly they have neglected their Afghanistan responsibilities. At the same time, however, the fact of the matter is it's not as if they wouldn't have gone into Iraq had we not done our part in Afghanistan. So are we to just let the South fall to instability simply because we have a beef with the way Americans handle their foreign policy? If you want to articulate a solid reasoning for why we shouldn't be in Kandahar, it must be more substantial than "because it helps the Americans in Iraq".
Opposing the Iraq War is not anti-American, most Americans don't support it anymore. And yes I think it is reasonable to say we will not pick up the slack for them deciding to go into Iraq. By picking up the slack for them we are impliciting endorsing the Iraq War. Its is not about having a beef with the United States, its about having a beef with the current White House.
I don't think the Bloc is scared of Dion. And they'd be horrified to vote with him to bring down the govt...at least right now.
I think the Bloc Quebecois is scared of Dion since they realize contrary to what some think, he is quite popular in Quebec.
This is just a wedge issue: Afghanistan is unpopular in Quebec and the Bloc hope to make Quebeckers more acutey aware of Harper's (actually, as they started it, the Liberals too) stance in favour of the war.
Quebec has a long tradition of pacifism so no war will ever be popular there, but at least if it is a just war the Tories could have had enough support in Quebec to still do okay.
How is the mission heavily articulated towards combat? Please elaborate.
Frankly, with the regards to our troops implicitly helping the Americans in Iraq, I agree the US should have more forces in Afghanistan, but if they were going to be in Iraq whether someone "picks up the slack" or not. And, frankly, with that, what is more important, trying to look like we don't endorse American foreign policy, or trying to help people in Kandahar who need help?
How is the mission heavily articulated towards combat? Please elaborate.
Exactly what has the government done other than combat. I would be interested in hearing.
Frankly, with the regards to our troops implicitly helping the Americans in Iraq, I agree the US should have more forces in Afghanistan, but if they were going to be in Iraq whether someone "picks up the slack" or not. And, frankly, with that, what is more important, trying to look like we don't endorse American foreign policy, or trying to help people in Kandahar who need help?
I am not against helping the Afghans, but considering that all we are seeing is people getting killed and little or no progress, I fail to see how being in Kandahar is serving any benefit. And no we shouldn't implicitly endorse the War in Iraq since we took a principled position against it.
Exactly what has the government done other than combat. I would be interested in hearing.
Well, first of all, it's not the government that's in Afghanistan, it's the military. Notwithstanding that faux-pas, the military is attempting to build roads, hospitals, schools, etc. I could elaborate, but I will refer you to here. I really wish Harper would articulate this kind of thing.
And another point, you didn't answer me. I asked you to elaborate on how you believe the focus on Afghanistan is on combat and you did not do that. I have held up my end of the bargain in showing how there is actually reconstruction efforts in Kandahar, and I expect similar of you.
As for the second part, again I'll just refer you to the link. To say that Kandahar hasn't benefitted from what Canadian effort there has been in shortsighted.
Well, first of all, it's not the government that's in Afghanistan, it's the military. Notwithstanding that faux-pas, the military is attempting to build roads, hospitals, schools, etc. I could elaborate, but I will refer you to here. I really wish Harper would articulate this kind of thing.
Obviously each person has a different view as to what is balanced and what isn't. I am not saying the military is doing nothing but combat, I am simply saying there is too much emphasis on combat and not enough on re-building.
As for the second part, again I'll just refer you to the link. To say that Kandahar hasn't benefitted from what Canadian effort there has been in shortsighted.
With the Taliban warlords controlling Kandahar and frequently crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan, while a heavy reliance on opium, I don't think it has been effective. The Russians and the British have already tried to fight in Afghanistan and both lost.
You are right that the Russians and British have not been successful in Afghanistan. Thus, it is imperative to look upon their mistakes and make sure we do not make the same ones they do.
You are right that the Russians and British have not been successful in Afghanistan. Thus, it is imperative to look upon their mistakes and make sure we do not make the same ones they do.
I think the bigger problem is conventional armies rarely succeed against guerilla forces. That is how the Americans defeated the British during the American revolution, how France lost in a slave rebellion to Haiti in 1804, how the United States lost in Vietnam, and how the US is losing in Iraq. I think that is the biggest problem here and I don't know that anybody has figured out a way for conventional armies to win in guerilla warfare except for carpet bombing the whole area or using nuclear weapons, which off course would be totally wrong.
These are NATO forces. Hardly "guerrilla" armies, really. Or at least that would depend on what would define a guerrilla army, in your opinion.
I was referring to the Taliban when I said guerilla forces, which is the whole reason why NATO cannot succeed since all NATO countries have conventional forces, not guerilla ones.
Ahh yes, my bad. Whoops.
I think Jack Layton, of all people, said it best. This is petty politics by the Bloc on the backs of people's lives.
As for the war itself, everytime I waver the Taliban go out and murder teachers or behead dozens of young men as some kind of warning to locals - and I am reminded of how totally irresponsible it would be of us, as in NATO, not just Canada, to cut and run.
That said, I am disgusted beyond words by the French, whose own freedom they owe to the tens of thousands of Canadian and American soldiers who died on their beaches and in their fields.
My disdain is only miniscuely less for the Germans; whose post-war freedom and prosperity is largely due to American largesse.
We, as in NATO, need to continue the effort in Afghanistan.
But Canada would be right, very right, to team up with the United States and Britain to take economic or whatever other action is deemed necessary to remind these NATO "members-of-convenience" that they have moral and ethical repsonsibilities that they are shirking.
I would begin by closing our collective bases in Germany and withdrawing our troops from Europe- IMMEDIATELY.
The French and Germans are shameless cowards in the face of their Muslim minorities, (without even knowing if those Muslim citizens support the Taliban), and blind anti-American zealotry.
We, as in Canadians, should not stoop to emulate them.
The poppy reminds us of Flanders Fields - a place in France where we honour those who died fighting tyranny.
Some of us honour them anyway. The French, beneath contempt as they are, crap on them now with their cowardice and emptied vaults of ethics and morals.
I think Jack Layton, of all people, said it best. This is petty politics by the Bloc on the backs of people's lives.
I don't think it is petty politics. War is a serious matter so if one opposes the government decision to be there, I think introducing a non-confidence motion is quite reasonable.
As for the war itself, everytime I waver the Taliban go out and murder teachers or behead dozens of young men as some kind of warning to locals - and I am reminded of how totally irresponsible it would be of us, as in NATO, not just Canada, to cut and run.
Since Afghanistan does not pose a threat to Canada, I think cutting and running is quite appropriate. The Taliban is a brutal regime, but there are many other brutal regimes. You cannot bring democracy at the end of the gun barrel, democracy evolves from within.
That said, I am disgusted beyond words by the French, whose own freedom they owe to the tens of thousands of Canadian and American soldiers who died on their beaches and in their fields.
I am quite proud of France. This is a country that choose to listen to its own people who are against war rather than be intimidated by other countries. Yes we did sacrifice for their freedom, but also the French have seen war first hand and know how awful it is and why we should try to wherever possible seek out peaceful solutions.
My disdain is only miniscuely less for the Germans; whose post-war freedom and prosperity is largely due to American largesse.
Again another country that listened to its own people. In 2003 Angela Merkel personally supported the Iraq War, but once she became chancellor she listened to the vast majority of Germans who opposed the war and didn't send troops there.
But Canada would be right, very right, to team up with the United States and Britain to take economic or whatever other action is deemed necessary to remind these NATO "members-of-convenience" that they have moral and ethical repsonsibilities that they are shirking.
I think if anything we should team up with Germany and France who were right on Iraq as opposed to Britain and the United States who were wrong on Iraq. I think the NATO countries are being quite reasonable. It is the United States, Britain, Australia, and now regretably Canada who are being unreasonable on foreign policy.
I would begin by closing our collective bases in Germany and withdrawing our troops from Europe- IMMEDIATELY.
We as Canadians don't to the best of my knowledge have bases in Germany. The United States does and what they decide to do, is their business.
The French and Germans are shameless cowards in the face of their Muslim minorities, (without even knowing if those Muslim citizens support the Taliban), and blind anti-American zealotry.
The French and Germans have if anything been too discriminatory against their Muslim minorities. They should like Canada do more to reach out to them and make them feel like they are part of society, not a marginalized group. Canada's success has been largely based on the fact many cultures can live together in peace and harmony.
We, as in Canadians, should not stoop to emulate them.
We shouldn't try to emulate anyone including the Americans. We should set our own foreign policy based on our own values and forget about the decisions of others. If our foreign policy aligns with another country, so be it, if it doesn't, also so be it. Our values of peace, tolerance, multiculturalism, freedom, democracy, rule of law, human rights should be what guides our foreign policy.
Some of us honour them anyway. The French, beneath contempt as they are, crap on them now with their cowardice and emptied vaults of ethics and morals.
I have a great respect for the French. Besides being a great nation to visit, the French are one of the three founding nations of Canada (British, French, and First Nations) so unlike the United States who owes no cultural allegiance too them, we as Canadians should remember the role they played in the formation of our country. More importantly we should recognize the role the Francophone community has played in making Canada the great nation it is. I don't believe Canada would be as a good nation as it is today if we were only made up of Anglophones.
Post a Comment
<< Home