As the head of a state with 50000 Lebonese-Canadians who were/are in Lebanon, I think he ought to make a statement.
And then everyone would be able to bash his errors of omission, commission, etc. etc.
Is it any wonder the man doesn't talk much? He's under the electron fucking microscope that is the Canadian political scene.
And then everyone would be able to bash his errors of omission, commission, etc. etc.
Is it any wonder the man doesn't talk much? He's under the electron fucking microscope that is the Canadian political scene.
He's a polititian. He is going to get bashed on any subject he addresses, whether it be fighting in the middle east or on the price of milk. It comes with the territory, but it doesn't mean that he should remain silent. Canadians would like to know where he stands on important issues.
What is he supposed to say, exactly? Should be pull a Gibson and go off on an anti-Semitic rant to appease you guys?
Man, not everything is about Harper. In fact, he's a non-factor in this situation.
Comon, no bullshit please, nobody said that Harper should start to kiss Hezbollah ass, what i'd like is a neutral stand and pressure for the resolution of the problem. At least show some leadership, he's just the Prime Minister after all.
I don't get your thoughts about this, he's the PM, he's responsible for Canada, why should he stay quiet? You hear Chirac talk all day about the situation and sending officials in Lebanon to show support, you have Bush taking his side (at least he's talking) and show Israel his support, why do you pledge for Canada to stay quiet? Harper took a side, now he must defend it, that's democracy, not hiding in your bureau waiting for everyone to shut up, comon...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Comon, no bullshit please, nobody said that Harper should start to kiss Hezbollah ass, what i'd like is a neutral stand and pressure for the resolution of the problem. At least show some leadership, he's just the Prime Minister after all.
I don't get your thoughts about this, he's the PM, he's responsible for Canada, why should he stay quiet? You hear Chirac talk all day about the situation and sending officials in Lebanon to show support, you have Bush taking his side (at least he's talking) and show Israel his support, why do you pledge for Canada to stay quiet? Harper took a side, now he must defend it, that's democracy, not hiding in your bureau waiting for everyone to shut up, comon...
Is Harper saying anything going to help the situation in any way? You have no idea as to what role Canada is trying to take behind the scenes but you want Harper to be spouting off.
Just look at this board, this situation is inflamed enough without the need for a leader to say anything. He's evacuated so called Canadians from Lebanon, letting actions speak for themselves.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Is Harper saying anything going to help the situation in any way? You have no idea as to what role Canada is trying to take behind the scenes but you want Harper to be spouting off.
Just look at this board, this situation is inflamed enough without the need for a leader to say anything. He's evacuated so called Canadians from Lebanon, letting actions speak for themselves.
that is your opinion, i'll repeat mine with a copy paste: "nobody said that Harper should start to kiss Hezbollah ass, what i'd like is a neutral stand and pressure for the resolution of the problem. At least show some leadership, he's just the Prime Minister after all."
If you like what's going on, kudos to you, i wish i would...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
We should be promoting an agenda of peace; an agenda that can't be achieved unless the rockets and bombs stop falling ... when you give one side an open endorsement to kill another - you lose that credibility to champion the notion of peace ...
Comon, no bullshit please, nobody said that Harper should start to kiss Hezbollah ass, what i'd like is a neutral stand and pressure for the resolution of the problem. At least show some leadership, he's just the Prime Minister after all.
I don't get your thoughts about this, he's the PM, he's responsible for Canada, why should he stay quiet? You hear Chirac talk all day about the situation and sending officials in Lebanon to show support, you have Bush taking his side (at least he's talking) and show Israel his support, why do you pledge for Canada to stay quiet? Harper took a side, now he must defend it, that's democracy, not hiding in your bureau waiting for everyone to shut up, comon...
I was using said bullshit to make my point ... and surferdude repeated it better than I did initially. What good is hearing from him about every new development going to do? Last I heard, the Canadian government was actually pushing for a ceasefire, although perhaps not an unconditional one. Should this get repeated each and every time a civilian dies?
You guys know his stance! What else do you need?
We should be promoting an agenda of peace; an agenda that can't be achieved unless the rockets and bombs stop falling ... when you give one side an open endorsement to kill another - you lose that credibility to champion the notion of peace ...
Its hard to disagree with this, actually. A call for a ceasefire without any hints of "favoratism" towards Israel would be a good thing. I still maintain that a so-called unconditional ceasefire won't happen, though, because neither side (Israel or Hizbollah) will agree to such terms. Both will have to make some concessions.
Its hard to disagree with this, actually. A call for a ceasefire without any hints of "favoratism" towards Israel would be a good thing. I still maintain that a so-called unconditional ceasefire won't happen, though, because neither side (Israel or Hizbollah) will agree to such terms. Both will have to make some concessions.
honestly, i know we appear to be against israel more than we are hezbollah ... we all have our reasons for believing what we do but at the end of the day ... i don't wanna see another kid pulled from some rubble whether he be jewish, lebanese or whatever ...
in 2 weeks of "fighting" nothing has been accomplished except suffering ... absolutely nothing ...
honestly, i know we appear to be against israel more than we are hezbollah ... we all have our reasons for believing what we do but at the end of the day ... i don't wanna see another kid pulled from some rubble whether he be jewish, lebanese or whatever ...
in 2 weeks of "fighting" nothing has been accomplished except suffering ... absolutely nothing ...
I know, the whole thing is just sickening. When I read yesterday that the UN had scrapped plans for a meeting, I saw red.
I was using said bullshit to make my point ... and surferdude repeated it better than I did initially. What good is hearing from him about every new development going to do? Last I heard, the Canadian government was actually pushing for a ceasefire, although perhaps not an unconditional one. Should this get repeated each and every time a civilian dies?
You guys know his stance! What else do you need?
Seriously i'd like him to get involve... if it's for Israel let it be and he'll pay the price or get result for his stance, now he's not answering question, he's not giving any hint at what he think of the last massacre, he barely talked about the UN canadian observer that was killed (mostly questionning the UN for being there), so far the only official statement is the one he made after the G8, as i said to Surferdude, if you're comfortable with this, kudos to you, i wish i would, but i'm not. I also don't like the hi jacking of Canadian values by a PM who hold a minority of the popular vote, but that might be another more general topic...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Seriously i'd like him to get involve... if it's for Israel let it be and he'll pay the price or get result for his stance, now he's not answering question, he's not giving any hint at what he think of the last massacre, he barely talked about the UN canadian observer that was killed (mostly questionning the UN for being there), so far the only official statement is the one he made after the G8, as i said to Surferdude, if you're comfortable with this, kudos to you, i wish i would, but i'm not. I also don't like the hi jacking of Canadian values by a PM who hold a minority of the popular vote, but that might be another more general topic...
What hijacking? You're right, that's a different topic.
Although if that happened, Israel really would get a raw deal ...
they'd get what the majority think is right... i guess that's how it should be, as Polaris said, no agendas.
But the UN must get involve to predict these conflict and settle the "hot" sector of the planet BEFORE crisis like this one happen (not all predictable, but sometimes it is), in this crisis it would have mean pressure for the recognition of both Israel and Palestine, pushing for the disarm of Hezbollah, anyway UN is light year from that... maybe they should base their headquarters in another country, that could also help in my opinion...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
they'd get what the majority think is right... i guess that's how it should be, as Polaris said, no agendas.
But the UN must get involve to predict these conflict and settle the "hot" sector of the planet BEFORE crisis like this one happen (not all predictable, but sometimes it is), in this crisis it would have mean pressure for the recognition of both Israel and Palestine, pushing for the disarm of Hezbollah, anyway UN is light year from that... maybe they should base their headquarters in another country, that could also help in my opinion...
Majority rule can be a dangerous thing, as much as I support the idea of democracy. That's why every democracy ideally has checks and balances against abuses of power by the majority.
listening to mackay on the radio ... its tragic ... why not use your words to promote a ceasefire or peace ... instead of continuing the same useless rhetoric about hezbollah this ... let me quote ... "the carnage in lebanon" is how he put it ... israel is responsible for that "carnage" - why not ask them to show some restraint??
Majority rules with no Bill of Rights to look after minority interests would be a bloodshed. Israel would be the lamb the wolves devour.
There are rules, there's the universal human rights declaration and that should never be overpassed (i mean in my utopic UN). Maybe having each country having an ELECTED UN members, would help to really have a said country's voice instead of someone who's appointed/named by each country.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
listening to mackay on the radio ... its tragic ... why not use your words to promote a ceasefire or peace ... instead of continuing the same useless rhetoric about hezbollah this ... let me quote ... "the carnage in lebanon" is how he put it ... israel is responsible for that "carnage" - why not ask them to show some restraint??
see, they send Mackay and he's gaffe prone, that's why the PM should be on tv, not letting his foreign minister take the heat alone. It seem like the Harper's strategy, to sacrifice his MP's instead of taking the heat... see Michael Fortier at the Outgames (and Fortier said he'll vote for the current gay marriage law to stay as it is, meaning he'll vote against the Cons.)
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
see, they send Mackay and he's gaffe prone, that's why the PM should be on tv, not letting his foreign minister take the heat alone. It seem like the Harper's strategy, to sacrifice his MP's instead of taking the heat... see Michael Fortier at the Outgames (and Fortier said he'll vote for the current gay marriage law to stay as it is, meaning he'll vote against the Cons.)
I'll admit that McKay is more gaffe-prone than Harper .... Still don't know why this is such a big deal, though.
see Michael Fortier at the Outgames (and Fortier said he'll vote for the current gay marriage law to stay as it is, meaning he'll vote against the Cons.)
It will be a free vote, meaning the Conservatives have taken no official stance other than to open the legislation to a free vote. I think you'll be surprised at how many Conservatives will vote to allow gay marriage.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Comments
And then everyone would be able to bash his errors of omission, commission, etc. etc.
Is it any wonder the man doesn't talk much? He's under the electron fucking microscope that is the Canadian political scene.
He's a polititian. He is going to get bashed on any subject he addresses, whether it be fighting in the middle east or on the price of milk. It comes with the territory, but it doesn't mean that he should remain silent. Canadians would like to know where he stands on important issues.
Comon, no bullshit please, nobody said that Harper should start to kiss Hezbollah ass, what i'd like is a neutral stand and pressure for the resolution of the problem. At least show some leadership, he's just the Prime Minister after all.
I don't get your thoughts about this, he's the PM, he's responsible for Canada, why should he stay quiet? You hear Chirac talk all day about the situation and sending officials in Lebanon to show support, you have Bush taking his side (at least he's talking) and show Israel his support, why do you pledge for Canada to stay quiet? Harper took a side, now he must defend it, that's democracy, not hiding in your bureau waiting for everyone to shut up, comon...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Just look at this board, this situation is inflamed enough without the need for a leader to say anything. He's evacuated so called Canadians from Lebanon, letting actions speak for themselves.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
that is your opinion, i'll repeat mine with a copy paste: "nobody said that Harper should start to kiss Hezbollah ass, what i'd like is a neutral stand and pressure for the resolution of the problem. At least show some leadership, he's just the Prime Minister after all."
If you like what's going on, kudos to you, i wish i would...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I was using said bullshit to make my point ... and surferdude repeated it better than I did initially. What good is hearing from him about every new development going to do? Last I heard, the Canadian government was actually pushing for a ceasefire, although perhaps not an unconditional one. Should this get repeated each and every time a civilian dies?
You guys know his stance! What else do you need?
Its hard to disagree with this, actually. A call for a ceasefire without any hints of "favoratism" towards Israel would be a good thing. I still maintain that a so-called unconditional ceasefire won't happen, though, because neither side (Israel or Hizbollah) will agree to such terms. Both will have to make some concessions.
honestly, i know we appear to be against israel more than we are hezbollah ... we all have our reasons for believing what we do but at the end of the day ... i don't wanna see another kid pulled from some rubble whether he be jewish, lebanese or whatever ...
in 2 weeks of "fighting" nothing has been accomplished except suffering ... absolutely nothing ...
I know, the whole thing is just sickening. When I read yesterday that the UN had scrapped plans for a meeting, I saw red.
Seriously i'd like him to get involve... if it's for Israel let it be and he'll pay the price or get result for his stance, now he's not answering question, he's not giving any hint at what he think of the last massacre, he barely talked about the UN canadian observer that was killed (mostly questionning the UN for being there), so far the only official statement is the one he made after the G8, as i said to Surferdude, if you're comfortable with this, kudos to you, i wish i would, but i'm not. I also don't like the hi jacking of Canadian values by a PM who hold a minority of the popular vote, but that might be another more general topic...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
UN are controlled by the USA right now, it's diplomatic blocking, same thing that happen in Rwanda but with different actors, sickening...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
What hijacking? You're right, that's a different topic.
Actually, this last time, it was France and a few other countries who pulled the plug. For once the Americans were at the table!
that's what i'm saying, different actors, same results. UN security council is innefective...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Yes, yes, it truly is. That gets proven everytime people in one of these countries get massacred. Rwanda, Sudan, Lebanon ... The list rolls on.
Although if that happened, Israel really would get a raw deal ...
they'd get what the majority think is right... i guess that's how it should be, as Polaris said, no agendas.
But the UN must get involve to predict these conflict and settle the "hot" sector of the planet BEFORE crisis like this one happen (not all predictable, but sometimes it is), in this crisis it would have mean pressure for the recognition of both Israel and Palestine, pushing for the disarm of Hezbollah, anyway UN is light year from that... maybe they should base their headquarters in another country, that could also help in my opinion...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Majority rule can be a dangerous thing, as much as I support the idea of democracy. That's why every democracy ideally has checks and balances against abuses of power by the majority.
leaning towards where??
i do not think israel would get screwed if there was no agenda ...
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
sure ... add a bill of rights but i still don't see how israel would get shafted ...
There are rules, there's the universal human rights declaration and that should never be overpassed (i mean in my utopic UN). Maybe having each country having an ELECTED UN members, would help to really have a said country's voice instead of someone who's appointed/named by each country.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
see, they send Mackay and he's gaffe prone, that's why the PM should be on tv, not letting his foreign minister take the heat alone. It seem like the Harper's strategy, to sacrifice his MP's instead of taking the heat... see Michael Fortier at the Outgames (and Fortier said he'll vote for the current gay marriage law to stay as it is, meaning he'll vote against the Cons.)
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I'll admit that McKay is more gaffe-prone than Harper .... Still don't know why this is such a big deal, though.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
well, i'm not crying alone in a corner over this issue, hehe, just discussing it, it's not THAT big, it's just bad in my opinion...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau