Stephen Harper is a Cowboy

[ollie]

Canada's military back on world stage: PM

Sending more than 2,000 Canadian troops to Afghanistan has turned Canada's military into a better fighting force and improved Canada's standing on the world stage, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said.

Yeah... thank god all those military and civilian casualties finally paid off!! Look at me world! I have big guns too!!

Fucking tool.

[djmelbatoast]

I would say he's more of a Brokeback Mountain kind of cowboy. You know the one that can't except himself for who he is and ends up severly damaging the lives of all the people around him.

[Birdy]

ollie where's that link supposed to go? it's not working!

[ollie]

ollie where's that link supposed to go? it's not working!

Link fixed. Thanks Birdy!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I would say he's more of a Brokeback Mountain kind of cowboy. You know the one that can't except himself for who he is and ends up severly damaging the lives of all the people around him.

- inclined to agree. It made me think of that old quote from T.S. Eliot - "Half the harm in this world is done by people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm – but harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."

[Birdy]

i'm inclined to disagree.

it was just the other day, i was cruising down the 401 thinking to myself that Harper wasn't that bad of a guy afterall. He's stood up on some issues despite all the negative press and shown great leadership. Something this country has been lacking for quite some time.

And it's important to realize and differentiate our efforts overseas vs. US efforts overseas. Troops in Afghanistan are on a different kind of mission that those special ops guys in Iraq. I don't care what anyone says, the world is a better place without the Taliban. I have a good friend, an Afghani girl who lives out in Vancouver, who has some absolutely horrific stories under her belt. She's happy Canadians are over there and when I hear what she has to say, so am I.

[ollie]

I agree that Harper shows good leadership I just don't like where he's leading us.

I have given Harper his due in the past. Doesn't mean I'm going to buy everything he says or does. I don't support this image of Canada that Harper wants to present to the world.

[ollie]

I don't care what anyone says, the world is a better place without the Taliban.

Let me know when the Taliban are gone and I'll re-evaluate the world.

[Birdy]

Afghanistan is a far better place today then it was 5 years ago.

As for Harper's image of Canada, i don't actually mind it. He's mended our broken relationship with our largest trading partner (without having to sit in Bush's palm), he's stood up to the US on certain issues of importance (ie, border control-- with some damn good points i might add), he's held his ground with an unrelenting press who does nothing short of personally sabotoge him, he recognizes the importance of military (ie, the lebanon evacuation nightmare), he supports a free Afghanistan and recognizes that saying "ooh taliban is bad" from the sidelines is not enough for a country that is able to give so much more and he has not committed us to whatever the "war on terror" is. I agreed with him completely on the flag to half mast debate, and the allowance of press when soldier's come home in caskets and respected him for his composure and arguments he gave. He is committed to responsible government and cleaning up the house. He leads. He has common sense.

I think i'm a pretty good judge of character, and honestly, Harper isn't a bad guy. I support the image of Canada he wants to send to the world. Canadian flags aren't hung from street signs in Holland on Rememberance Day because we sat on our asses at home. Sometimes people need help.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Guest

[djmelbatoast]

I completly disagree with you on all of these points.

[Birdy]

understandable.. if we were all in agreeance i doubt we'd have a politics forum.

i won't debate the whole harper thing, as we will all take from his actions what we will, but i have a hard time understanding how you could "completely disagree" that Afghanistan is a far better place today than it was 5 years ago, or that "sometimes people need help" (especially following a WWII reference).

[djmelbatoast]

I just don't see how switch one repressive regime(the Taliban) for another oppressive regime(the US/Canada) but adding lots of civilian deaths and rocket launchers through your living room is neccisarily a step in the right direction.

Also, it is not the people of Afganistan Harper is there to help it is the people in Washington.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Guest

[Birdy]

i really can't see how you can compare the Taliban who won't allow women to go to school or to hold jobs, who practice genital mutilation, who ban music and sports, who publicly beat women for not completely covering their bodies, who force mothers to behead their sons, to the US or Canada.

i checked out your profile.. you host a radio show.. under taliban rule there's no radio.. there's no form of expression or creativity allowed. you would be killed.

are you ok with this? are you ok with knowing that this shit goes on in the world? i'm not.

[ollie]

he's held his ground with an unrelenting press who does nothing short of personally sabotoge him

The thing that pisses me off about this is how much joy Conservative supporters took in the media bashing that Paul Martin endured during his run as PM. "Mr. Dither" anyone? They now act as if this is the first time the media has been tough on the PM. The hypocrisy is staggering. I just can't get past it.

He is committed to responsible government and cleaning up the house.

Two names: David Emerson, Michael Fortier. I will not turn a blind eye to those two appointments.

[ollie]

i won't debate the whole harper thing, as we will all take from his actions what we will, but i have a hard time understanding how you could "completely disagree" that Afghanistan is a far better place today than it was 5 years ago...

How would you or I know this?

[Birdy]

he's held his ground with an unrelenting press who does nothing short of personally sabotoge him

The thing that pisses me off about this is how much joy Conservative supporters took in the media bashing that Paul Martin endured during his run as PM. "Mr. Dither" anyone? They now act as if this is the first time the media has been tough on the PM. The hypocrisy is staggering. I just can't get past it.

You can't get past it? Shit Ollie! This is the first time in like... 10 YEARS the Conservatives had something on the liberals! I'm surprised it wasn't taken any further than "Mr. Dither". The Liberals had a field day with the paint brush post Mulroney and pre-Harper. In Harper's defence' date=' at least Mulroney and Martin both had scandals.. Harper was the victim of bad press in war time. Never even getting the chance to govern before pictures are posted with Hitler references!! I can't get past that shit! Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it, it's politics and it's a dirty game. But when all you have against someone is what you think he "MIGHT" do, than i just can't get past that.

He is committed to responsible government and cleaning up the house.

Two names: David Emerson' date=' Michael Fortier. I will not turn a blind eye to those two appointments.

[/quote']

That's up to you i guess, but with regards to Emerson, keep in mind that the CPC doesn't stand alone... and in a country whose regions bitch and complain and call for separation i think a little regional representation is a pretty good idea.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Guest

[Birdy]

i won't debate the whole harper thing' date=' as we will all take from his actions what we will, but i have a hard time understanding how you could "completely disagree" that Afghanistan is a far better place today than it was 5 years ago...[/quote']

How would you or I know this?

well knowing that women are allowed to go to school, to hold jobs, to pursue careers helps out. knowing that the taliban isn't amputating arms and legs of people who listen to music, or beheading young men for speaking out helps out. knowing that my friend Roya was able to go and visit her family there for the first time since she was 13 years old helps out too.

[Hux]

Harper was the victim of bad press in war time.

You're insane.

Harper basically adopted the US position on the Lebanon crises, which deviated completely from past Canadian foreign policy. Even the Conservative leader in the UK didn't adopt such a pro-Bush stand and that is the party of Margaret Thatcher.

He was decisive alright, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that his views on that crisis differ greatly from those held by many Canadians, particularly Quebecers, and those ramifications and evident in recent polls.

Harper got glowing press coverage during the election (which has been proven) but the fallout over the recent middle east issue has NOTHING to do with the press, but his dogmatic Republican stance.

[Hux]

and in a country whose regions bitch and complain and call for separation i think a little regional representation is a pretty good idea.

So do I, but democratic representation ie. the person elected by the voters, not your backroom fundraising bag-boy who you appoint to the Senate after vowing not to.

[ollie]

Harper was the victim of bad press in war time.

Were we not at war when Paul Martin was PM?

[Birdy]

notice the past tense in my post Ollie.. i'm referring to election time propaganda and the seeming attitude that alot of Canadians adopted in thinking that if the CPC were elected it meant impending doom. left-leaning media did everything they could to play up this fear of WWIII in an effort to sway voters. this is what i meant by Harper being the victim of bad press in war time.

hux i agree harper's conduct during the Lebanon evacuation crisis did go against the grain of previous foreign policy.. and probably how a lot of Canadians feel about foreign policy too. but you can't argue that our military was ill-equipped to deal with that kind of crisis, and i appreciated that Harper used this example to show Canadians just how fucked up our military really is. really, if we were forced with a natural disaster the size of Katrina, we'd be screwed. that's something we should be concerned about.

and as for Michael Fortier, i know about the vows. And there is a small little thing inside of me that feels slightly stung by it all... but then i think that Parliament Hill is like the home of broken promises. Harper's got a minority government hanging on by strings with some shitty-ass representation. He's trying to hold on. Michael Fortier is like a grip.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

left-leaning media did everything they could to play up this fear of WWIII in an effort to sway voters.

Did you see the Time a few weeks back, with its cover story on precisely that? Seems it's the right-wing pundits who are pumping up that as a theory of where things are at (except that they're clamouring for it, not trying to find ways to avoid it).

[Birdy]

c'mon DEM.. haha if i weren't going for lunch right now i'd dig up a few threads from this site around election time to coincide with what i said. media, whether right or left, relies heavily on people's emotional state to get their points across.

i didn't see the cover of Time though.

[djmelbatoast]

I still can't get past this idea that Canada went to Afganistan to liberate women. THe Taliban was in power for a long time before Canada was there. Just as there are a whole bunch of repressive regimes all over the world right now. The fact that girls aren't getting mutilated is more of a happy accident then a success of policy.

Canada went there searching for the boogie man because the US told them to. Five years later there is still no solid evidence that Bin Ladin was anything more than a CIA agent and was in US custody days before 911 happened in Saudi Arabia. Afganistan was all about building a pipe line that the Taliban did not want stretching across their land.

As for my radio show that is a privilage that only some get to have, and even in Canada 30 years ago we would have been shut down by the CRTC simply because we have political programming which questions the government and allows for open debate on issues without censor. If Harper follows along with Bush that might be in jepordy and the only community radio that would be likely to be heard in Canada would be the same watered down NPR crap they get in the states. Hell, it was only in the 60's that they chained together the swings in Toronto on Sundays because it was the Lord's day.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Guest
sp

[Hux]

left-leaning media did everything they could to play up this fear of WWIII in an effort to sway voters.

I challenge you to find anything that supports that, and as this article/study by a group at McGill proves, Harper and the Conservatives actually received preferential treatment from newspapers in the second half of election 2006.

So, you're wrong there.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Guest