Politics in 2016

[Rocky Mountains]

What are we - Americans who abandon their allies?  Mind you, with the Saudis, we are never really sure which side they are on.  It bothers my conscience nary a bit whether people are killed with the aid of Canadian, American, Russian or French low-tech vehicles.  They are just as dead.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Message for the CPC:

 

[The Bread Guy]

Now THIS is pretty rich. I agree and think that the full report should be released (we shouldn't have done this deal in the first place) but do the Conservatives think Canadians are utter pylons? That we'll forget the last 12 months?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-press-liberal-government-to-justify-saudi-arms-deal/article28125150/recommendi/

Mr. Clement acknowledges that the Conservatives are asking for information they refused to release while in office under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  But he says the new leadership of the Conservative Party feels differently ... “So don’t take the signal from the last government. If you want to be true to your principles and values, which the Conservative Party under new leadership shares, let’s move forward.”

A pretty refreshingly frank (if more than a bit hypocritical) dig by Tony Clement towards the former skipper of the ship -- "hey, you must have us confused with those OTHER Tories that just left!"

#eatingtheirownalready  :facepalm:

 

[Brad Sallows]

The CPC are secretive, which in itself is no secret.  Should the Opposition be holding the new government to a CPC standard or a LPC standard?

 

[Remius]

Heard Tony Clement on As It Happens.    ???  Not sure what the game plan is here.

 

[Kilo_302]

What are we - Americans who abandon their allies?  Mind you, with the Saudis, we are never really sure which side they are on.  It bothers my conscience nary a bit whether people are killed with the aid of Canadian, American, Russian or French low-tech vehicles.  They are just as dead.

Right but remember we're apparently in the game of trying to defeat ISIS. There's quite a bit of evidence out there that the Saudis armed and trained them, and are STILL heavily involved. Obviously our LAVs won't be going that route, but should we be selling weapons to a country that is actively supporting the other side in a war we're in?

Not to mention that the LAVs will most likely be used to quell internal opposition and uprisings in neighbouring countries (Canadian vehicles were used in Bahrain in 2011).

This puts us in a very awkward position if and when the House of Saud collapses. It also guarantees whoever replaces them will not be very friendly towards Canada.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

We are Westerners- in that part of the world, that puts us in an awkward position, no matter what.

I am super fine with selling arms to the Saudis (or anyone else from that part of the world) that wants them. The jobs building those vehicles might as well go to London. If not , they will go to Paris. Or Moscow.

It is fun watching the Liberals twist in the wind over this, however.

 

[a_majoor]

That's the Lefty narrative - not to be confused with the truth.  Canadian participation in The Afghan War was start by the Liberals and ended by the Conservatives.  The Highway of Heroes was named by the Liberal government of Ontario following popular demand.  I am not sure how imagery of the Queen, our head of state is any more Conservative than Liberal, at least by anything they actually say.  Racism toward immigrants?  The Conservatives let in a lot more non-European immigrants than the Liberals ever did albeit for economic reasons rather than some imagined touchy-feely charitable reason.  Also the Muslim headgear restriction was almost universally supported by Canadians.

And as an interesting twist, in the January 11 dead tree edition of the Natinal post, there is a small article on CPC polling for tax cuts prior to the election. Evidently, support for these cuts was fairly high (up to 70% for some cuts) that the CPC was confident that that issue would be firmly in their hands. Since tax cuts and increasing savings vehicles is not on our horizon any time soon (and any smoke and mirrors will certainly be overwhelmed by the effects of tax and fee increases to pay for "Climate Change"), I'll see if I can find an e version to post, just for the record. (Harper had polls backing his tax cuts. Mark Kennedy, National Post Jan 11 2016 page A4)

 

[Edward Campbell]

We are Westerners- in that part of the world, that puts us in an awkward position, no matter what.

I am super fine with selling arms to the Saudis (or anyone else from that part of the world) that wants them. The jobs building those vehicles might as well go to London. If not , they will go to Paris. Or Moscow.

It is fun watching the Liberals twist in the wind over this, however.

I agree with all three of your points ...

But, regarding the last one: we should let the media take the pot shots, as they are already doing. It is unseemly, to say the least, hypocritical in reality, for Tony Clement to be taking the shots he has, given that he and Rona Ambrose and much of the CPC front bench were ministers in the Harper government.

I repeat ...

               

 

[Remius]

Plus, the story is now turned into a story about their hypocrisy.  This was a bad call.  Best they just let it die and leave it be.  Or let the NDP handle the criticism.

 

[Altair]

Plus, the story is now turned into a story about their hypocrisy.  This was a bad call.  Best they just let it die and leave it be.  Or let the NDP handle the criticism.

The NDP? What, and lose the votes of the workers around London?

I really don't see any party running hard o this one.

 

[Remius]

They've already asked for the report.  The CPC can let them deal with whatever fall out they suffer rather than have teh CPC beat itself up with their own hands.

 

[Kirkhill]

Right but remember we're apparently in the game of trying to defeat ISIS. There's quite a bit of evidence out there that the Saudis armed and trained them, and are STILL heavily involved. Obviously our LAVs won't be going that route, but should we be selling weapons to a country that is actively supporting the other side in a war we're in?

Not to mention that the LAVs will most likely be used to quell internal opposition and uprisings in neighbouring countries (Canadian vehicles were used in Bahrain in 2011).

This puts us in a very awkward position if and when the House of Saud collapses. It also guarantees whoever replaces them will not be very friendly towards Canada.

Is it "the" Saudis or is it just Saudis?

As you imply the House of Saud is under a great deal of internal pressure.  In fact the Saudi National Guard is a separate army from the Saudi Army.  It is more of a Household Brigade (I believe) loyal to the House of Saud - or at least some factions therein.

Any way you slice it, it is an unholy mess over there and any choices we make are going to mean that we get dirty.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Selling guns to bad people who will use them to kill other bad people who then might, in turn, want to buy some more guns from us is good business ... money in Canadian workers' pockets and lots of (local) blood in the sand over there ...

                   

                                                ... what's not to like?

 

[Kilo_302]

Selling guns to bad people who will use them to kill other bad people who then might, in turn, want to buy some more guns from us is good business ... money in Canadian workers' pockets and lots of (local) blood in the sand over there ...

                   

                                                ... what's not to like?

You're assuming that any and all opposition to the governments in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain will be made up of "bad people." This simply isn't the case. There are secular nationalist movements in both countries. All we are doing by arming their oppressive governments is guaranteeing whoever comes after the House of Saud will be anti-Western, making it more likely that whatever comes after the House of Saud will Islamist in nature.

Selling weapons to a government that is still supporting ISIS isn't good business. Not sure how you see it that way. Canadian Forces are in harms way combating ISIS. Equipping their trainers and suppliers with LAVs hardly seems like a sensible approach...or am I crazy?

Is it "the" Saudis or is it just Saudis?

As you imply the House of Saud is under a great deal of internal pressure.  In fact the Saudi National Guard is a separate army from the Saudi Army.  It is more of a Household Brigade (I believe) loyal to the House of Saud - or at least some factions therein.

Any way you slice it, it is an unholy mess over there and any choices we make are going to mean that we get dirty.

Yes the SANG is the force most often used to quell internal dissent, which makes it very likely our LAVs will be used much the same way they were used in 2011 in Bahrain, to machine gun unarmed protesters who are hoping to liberalize their society, and maybe even democratize. The stuff the US ostensibly invaded Iraq for.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Kilo, I am happy to concede that there are a few good people in the region ... Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon make up all of my list. None of the others are, even remotely, in our "friends" column and only a very few, if any, might be in the "not to bad" column.

All the rest, beginning with Iran and Saudi Arabia, equally, deserve whatever we can send them ...

                                               

 

[Altair]

Kilo, I am happy to concede that there are a few good people in the region ... Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon make up all of my list. None of the others are, even remotely, in our "friends" column and only a very few, if any, might be in the "not to bad" column.

All the rest, beginning with Iran and Saudi Arabia, equally, deserve whatever we can send them ...

                                               

Not even sure if Egypt deserves to be one that list...

 

[Kilo_302]

Kilo, I am happy to concede that there are a few good people in the region ... Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon make up all of my list. None of the others are, even remotely, in our "friends" column and only a very few, if any, might be in the "not to bad" column.

All the rest, beginning with Iran and Saudi Arabia, equally, deserve whatever we can send them ...

                                               

I think it's a mistake to treat these nations as homogeneous entities. When you say Egypt is on your "good list" are you referring to the current military dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected regime (as distasteful as the Muslim Brotherhood might be to us, they won the election)? Or are you referring to the burgeoning secular democratic movement that would probably not serve Western interests as well as the military government?

By allowing and encouraging the military to take power, we're only ensuring that the Muslim Brotherhood (those that the survive the mass executions) will be even more radicalised.

As for for suggesting we should just bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia in their entirety, again, who are you referring to? Their governments? Their people? A significant number of Iranians want democratic reform, and under President Khatami that seemed likely. Khatami aided the US in its invasion of Afghanistan with HUMINT, and was pressing for liberalization in Iran. That ended when Iran was included in the "axis of evil" of speech. Treating these countries as enemies rather than engaging never helps our interests in the long run.

 

[Altair]

I think it's a mistake to treat these nations as homogeneous entities. When you say Egypt is on your "good list" are you referring to the current military dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected regime (as distasteful as the Muslim Brotherhood might be to us, they won the election)? Or are you referring to the burgeoning secular democratic movement that would probably not serve Western interests as well as the military government?

By allowing and encouraging the military to take power, we're only ensuring that the Muslim Brotherhood (those that the survive the mass executions) will be even more radicalised.

As for for suggesting we should just bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia in their entirety, again, who are you referring to? Their governments? Their people? A significant number of Iranians want democratic reform, and under President Khatami that seemed likely. Khatami aided the US in its invasion of Afghanistan with HUMINT, and was pressing for liberalization in Iran. That ended when Iran was included in the "axis of evil" of speech. Treating these countries as enemies rather than engaging never helps our interests in the long run.

you inadvertently hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph.

Where was that secular democratic movement when there was a free election in Egypt? Overwhelmed by the Muslim brotherhood who then went on to drag the country towards their fanatical ideas.

If the Saudi royals fell, don't kid yourself on who would take over. Secular movements all over the region get overwhelmed by the fanatics no matter how the government falls. In Syria isil and al nusra run wild, what's left of the moderates being bombed and blown to pieces. In Egypt, when people are given a choice they don't pick the moderates, they go for the Muslim brotherhood who are closet isil. Tunisia might be the only place where moderates actually got into power.

So our choices are hardline human right abusing strongmen or hardcore Islamists. Moderates don't factor in.

 

[shootemup604]

In Saudi, the military, national guard, and police are three different entities that act as checks and balances on each other (or rather, their respective princes-in-charge).  It's a stretch, but for comparison think of how (in theory) our executive/legislative/judicial branches are checks and balances on each other (we all know that the SCC trumps everything).