Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think you forget that Israel agreed to the process of peace talks to end violence and begin ending settlements elsewhere. Hamas didn't. They want all the land and were prepared to use terrorism to g

What you don't seem to understand is that the involvement of outside interests actually facilitate confrontation not resolve it.

So far it's been exactly that. Without massive support from outside, the sides could be much more willing to negotiate. Anyways I doubt it's about doing good on the global sphere, simply Libs need votes now, and they want a piece of Harper's cake (who is supporting one side fully and wholeheartedly .. some way to attain peace, no doubt.. and the Libs "support democracy" adage now sounds suspiciously familar.. even to that of the late (as president) GWB. Yeahg right, not "uncritically"!!! Now it's only a matter of figuring out whatever that's supposed to mean?)

Edited by myata
Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the Liberals were above scare tactics. Honestly bring back Dion at least that guy talked about real issues that affected Canadians.

I thought some NDP were realistic. Almost every nation in the middle east is developing nuclear weapons and your party's solution is to leave Israel to it own ends?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, Iraq? Indeed what outlandish claims would a politician not make, when they're in a desperate need for those votes?

Wait so it was OK for Israel to be the only nuke power in the region, nobody seemed to worry much about it.. but now that somebody else is after the good stuff too, they are suddenly in the urgent need of "support"? Isn't that the way we we, "democracies" really want it, us having be biggest stick in the neighbourhood, and gently (but convincingly) advising others how to run their affairs? I mean why is it that our sense of justice only wakes up when a "democracy" finds itself in trouble (real or imaginary, different matter), but sleeps sound and undisturbed if/when that same "democracy" goes on some dirty business?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like, Iraq? Indeed what outlandish claims would a politician not make, when they're in a desperate need for those votes?

Syria and Iran are also in the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Given Iran's stable situation and their feelings about Israel, you think ignoring the situation is a something Canada should be doing?

Wait so it was OK for Israel to be the only nuke power in the region, nobody seemed to worry much about it.. but now that somebody else is after the good stuff too, they are suddenly in the urgent need of "support"? Isn't that the way we we, "democracies" really want it, us having be biggest stick in the neighbourhood, and gently (but convincingly) advising others how to run their affairs? I mean why is it that our sense of justice only wakes up when a "democracy" finds itself in trouble (real or imaginary, different matter), but sleeps sound and undisturbed if/when that same "democracy" goes on some dirty business?

Once again, I didn't say that support is uncritical. It is just different than no support at all which is what some seem to advocate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Syria and Iran are also in the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Given Iran's stable situation and their feelings about Israel, you think ignoring the situation is a something Canada should be doing?

I hear Syria elects their government didn't you say we need to protect them becuase they are a democracy.

Here is my question how come we give India and Pakistan Nuclear technology and then we deny it too all others? Why is Israel allowed to have nukes but not other countries? I don't understand the hypocrisy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear Syria elects their government didn't you say we need to protect them becuase they are a democracy.

It isn't a democracy. It is a single party state which has been under emergency rule since 1963.

Here is my question how come we give India and Pakistan Nuclear technology and then we deny it too all others? Why is Israel allowed to have nukes but not other countries? I don't understand the hypocrisy.

So the NDP policy is to make sure everyone has them?

I thought the goal was to reduce proliferation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So the NDP policy is to make sure everyone has them?

I thought the goal was to reduce proliferation.

So we agree when Liberal 's under Louis St. Laurent sold India it's first rector it was wrong to do so. This was the one they got first material to make their first bomb out of.

I think we need to be careful with our technology I would not like to be responsible for another nuclear armed nation although you aren't going to stop progress you can bomb as many reactors as you want if they want the technology they will get it and guess who they are coming for first? The countries that bombed them. We can all get along you need to give people a reason too though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't a democracy. It is a single party state which has been under emergency rule since 1963.

Or gosh, now we're gonna define the rules who qualifies (for "uncritical" support). Pulling the cord as high (or dropping as low) as the need be? Right?

Wouldn't this country have more credibility internationally, insisting on clear and just principles for everybody? Not counting those who go against them as our friends, nor lending them any support, till they change their ways? Why would we, living here and having nothing to do with that conflict, want that club (or gang) style politics based on some vague self defined criteria, unlike "Iggy"/"Harper" we have no votes to be gained from it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or gosh, now we're gonna define the rules who qualifies (for "uncritical" support). Pulling the cord as high (or dropping as low) as the need be? Right?

Didn't say anything of the kind. I just said that Syria is not considered a democracy.

Wouldn't this country have more credibility internationally, insisting on clear and just principles for everybody? Not counting those who go against them as our friends, nor lending them any support, till they change their ways? Why would we, living here and having nothing to do with that conflict, want that club (or gang) style politics based on some vague self defined criteria, unlike "Iggy"/"Harper" we have no votes to be gained from it?

I have no idea what your position is on all this other than to withdraw all involvement. I think we have seen that we will be drawn in one way or the other, especially when conflict escalates.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites
So we agree when Liberal 's under Louis St. Laurent sold India it's first rector it was wrong to do so. This was the one they got first material to make their first bomb out of.

When we've sold reactors, it hasn't been to let countries develop nuclear technology. I suppose we could have hoarded the technology but Canada's goal from the beginning is to discourage proliferation. We have had the knowledge since 1945 to make a bomb and never have. We've led by example.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea what your position is on all this other than to withdraw all involvement.

We could, for starters, create clear and unambiguous principles we consider to be just approaches to the settlement of the confilict, and insist on their implementation in practice by anybody who wants to be our friends. We could insist on stopping and condemn violence, always and regardless of which side perpetrates it. We could clearly and unconditionally condemn illegal practices, by whoever happens to be involved. Sounds too much already? Much easier to define some vague club that fits our definition of the time, support it wholeheartedly when it suits us, or look the other way if something untoward is going on?

I think we have seen that we will be drawn in one way or the other, especially when conflict escalates.

Yes but do we have to? If we have nothing of real value to offer (see above; uncritical or otherwise, support of one side in the conflict hardly helps to settle anything), why couldn't we simply stay away? Oh right, the votes! If not me, then "Harper"'s gonna get them!

Edited by myata
Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats, Dobbin, you've got some support here, too bad they won't be voting for you come election. The problem with half principled politics, the only friends you get aren't really those that you want. See Harper-Iggy and the EI election. Can't go out of your way, have to do with what you get, I understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When we've sold reactors, it hasn't been to let countries develop nuclear technology. I suppose we could have hoarded the technology but Canada's goal from the beginning is to discourage proliferation. We have had the knowledge since 1945 to a bomb and never have. We've led by example.

I believe the theory was if we give them peaceful nuclear energy, they'll be less likely to spend money to develop the A-Bomb or some wild idea like that. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
here's a novel idea!

TO HELL WITH THE LOT OF THEM...

Canada owes ZERO to the gangster state of Israel and positively shouldn't even think about meddling in the affairs of the furry faced crack pots in the middle east.

Our involvement gets us nothing but hate and log rolling... its time to bid that festering hell hole a good buy and GOOD LUCK...

Canadians can vote based on whatever issue they find important. If what matters to them is economy, they can vote for the party they think best represents them on that, if it's healthcare, or education, or whatever else, they can vote based on that. And if it happens to be foreign policy that someone cares about, then that too is a valid issue to base one's vote upon.

Forget the Jewish thing - it's old school economics base on stero-typing - the world has changed and the "Jooooos" as BC puts it do not rule the world - you do..so wake up and stop living in the past.

Oleg, you made a post that actually makes sense. Congratulations! :)

I believe the theory was if we give them peaceful nuclear energy, they'll be less likely to spend money to develop the A-Bomb or some wild idea like that. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Seems to be our strategy with Iran now... hopefully we pick a different one before it's too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We could, for starters, create clear and unambiguous principles we consider to be just approaches to the settlement of the confilict, and insist on their implementation in practice by anybody who wants to be our friends. We could insist on stopping and condemn violence, always and regardless of which side perpetrates it. We could clearly and unconditionally condemn illegal practices, by whoever happens to be involved. Sounds too much already? Much easier to define some vague club that fits our definition of the time, support it wholeheartedly when it suits us, or look the other way if something untoward is going on?

I have no problems with a clear policy. We should be looking to resolve conflict by offering whatever help we can.

Yes but do we have to? If we have nothing of real value to offer (see above; uncritical or otherwise, support of one side in the conflict hardly helps to settle anything), why couldn't we simply stay away? Oh right, the votes! If not me, then "Harper"'s gonna get them!

I think we do have something to offer. We were instrumental with the people we put to work on the issue of Northern Ireland.

We could do the same with the Middle East in our own way.

Canada is a friend of Israel. But commendably, we are offering the hand of friendship and trade to Jordan as well. Perhaps they will be next of a number of Arab countries to sign free trade agreements with Canada. I have no problem commending the Harper government for the signing of the agreement with Jordan. It will probably do more for Palestinians than anything else we have done in the last years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace

Well it is a real problem. I would however love to like a Nuclear weapons free world.

I agree. But I doubt we'll be doing that anytime soon. I think it's time folks (in general...not so much here) got a good dose of what nuclear weapons are, as often these days they seem to be viewed as merely the 'king of bombs'; a political pawn rather than the threat to human existance that they really are.

Back in the day...cough cough...there were films like 'Threads' and "The Day After" that at least scared the public a bit re: these things. Still available, I see...

Threads (British:1984)

The Day After (USA:1983)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Congrats, Dobbin, you've got some support here, too bad they won't be voting for you come election. The problem with half principled politics, the only friends you get aren't really those that you want. See Harper-Iggy and the EI election. Can't go out of your way, have to do with what you get, I understand.

Well, I won't be running this election. heh

My main concern is to see the reduction of hostilities in the Middle East. Canada, as a friend of Israel, can offer support and advice on the situation. It isn't an uncritical support. While Israel has a right to defend itself, it has to come to terms with settlements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I won't be running this election. heh

My main concern is to see the reduction of hostilities in the Middle East. Canada, as a friend of Israel, can offer support and advice on the situation. It isn't an uncritical support. While Israel has a right to defend itself, it has to come to terms with settlements.

Israel has to be willing to give up some water. That is what stands in the way of peace. Israel could care less about the desert, and the Palestinians can do with out the Golan Heights cause they can never have that back. However Israel has to give up some amount of water. I honestly believe this is a resource war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Israel has to be willing to give up some water. That is what stands in the way of peace. Israel could care less about the desert, and the Palestinians can do with out the Golan Heights cause they can never have that back. However Israel has to give up some amount of water. I honestly believe this is a resource war.

The Golan heights never belonged to Palestinians to begin with. Just thought I'd point that out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Golan heights never belonged to Palestinians to begin with. Just thought I'd point that out.

Yup...and before the 6 Day War, Gaza was Egyptian while the West Bank was Jordanian. There was no talk of a "Free Palestine" in those days.

Water is important...but both sides have used it as a weapon in the continuing war. In order for any water deals to occur, Syria needs to make a proper peace treaty w/ Israel. They're for all intents, still at war, much like North and South Korea.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup...and before the 6 Day War, Gaza was Egyptian while the West Bank was Jordanian. There was no talk of a "Free Palestine" in those days.

Water is important...but both sides have used it as a weapon in the continuing war. In order for any water deals to occur, Syria needs to make a proper peace treaty w/ Israel. They're for all intents, still at war, much like North and South Korea.

Again Israel can't make peace with Syria becuase of the Golan Heights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...