It'll be a sad day if Stephane Dion ever becomes PM of Canada.

"– he’s looking prime ministerial." Image is everything, substance matters little.

"...the principle one being that he distances himself from George Bush."

But not from Bush's policies, obviously.

"Dion wants time. He’s a patient man..."

Great! Only fools rush in where angels fear to tread - prime examples: Iraq/Afghanistan.

"It'll be a sad day if Stephane Dion ever becomes PM of Canada."

If he does, then his party won the largest number of seats in the house. So, as always, it will be a sad day for those who didn't, and a happy day for those who did.

That is always the way it is.

I am NOT a fan of Steven Harper by any means, but try as I might,I cannot get behind Stephane Dion either.
Harper is a robot with strong dictatorial tendencies.
Scary.
Dion instills very little confidence and tends to remind me of John Cretien when I listen to him.
Not the least is his grasp of the english language.
So where does that leave us?
Jack Layton?
Not likely, unless we want to spend a lot of time laughing.
And therein lies the problem...who the hell DO I support when the election call comes?
I have a feeling that I am not alone in this!

Canadian Action Party has some good party policies, but not sure about the candidates they field....

Green party is out of the question because of their hypocracy on the BCSTV electoral reform issue.

Harper is a disaster on foreign policy (ie Lebanon war, North American Union) and broke his promise on electoral reform and turned his back on Northern BC once in power, so I'm not sure where he could get some political currency from (Quebec)....

It seems the choices are at an all time low for all the parties concerned federally,and the provincial government choices are not much better!
I think the next Federal Election will be a total bore.
Here are MY predictions:
-Harper (Conservatives)will face a tough fight even within his own party, but will stay on as a minority government.(damn!)
-Dion (Liberals)will take a big hit and Ignatieff will challenge his leadership at the next leadership convention and win.There will be more scandles for them before the next election as well.
-Elizabeth May will win nothing and will also be eaten by her party.( serious credibiltiy problem here)
-Jack Layton will lose seats and also be devoured.(thank god!)
...and unfortunately,there is nobody else that even deserves to be discussed.
:-)

Sounds about right. I actually liked Ignatieff and figure he should be a real Canadian thus able for the job next time around.

As usual we get into a position where we can have someone for a Prime Minister who is not a fool or a knave, and guess what? People are not happy.

We dont need Dion or Ignatieff as our Prime Minister unless we want the rest of the world to continue to beleive we are nuts.
We've had a long series of border line at best Prime Ministers, mainley because they are in fact elected by thier partys and rubber stamped by the voters. Under our system a person can become Prime Minister before he is ever elected to Government.

In any event. Harper will have some trouble in the next election if he does not come to terms with Afghanistan. However I suggest that those who insist on trying to imply that the Conservatives are responsible for our being there, read a little. It was Paul Martin and the Liberals that commited Canadian Troops to
Afghanistan. Keep that in mind.

Harper and the Conservatives seem to be willing to spend some money on the military to make it less of a laughing stock, in addition they are willing to spend some money to protect our soverienty in the north. etc; etc; etc;.

As I recall all the Liberals ever did was channel money to their buddies. Run around in circles babbling like idiots, and generally making fools of themselves. Dion and Iggy will continue this tradition.

Its time for a realistic Government with realistic ideas. This leaves out the Liberals, NDP, Green, and of course the Bloc. So whats left?

A majority Conservative Government will allow this Country to settle in for a number of years and deal with some real issues.

"It was Paul Martin and the Liberals that committed Canadian Troops to
Afghanistan. Keep that in mind."

The troops were committed by NATO at the request of the UN and given terms of operation as an ISAF.

International Security Assistance Force.

Once the Taliban made a (predictable) resurgence the role of the ISAF and Canada's role changed from the traditional role of peace keepers (as agreed to by Paul Martin and the Liberals) to one of offensive pursuit of the enemy (Taliban).

There was a temporary lull after Karzai was installed - then things went back to *normal.*

*Normal* means age-old Afghan resistance to being invaded by foreign *infidels* and consequently guerrilla type hit and run fighting.

In the past Britain and the Soviet Union experienced sharp pains as a result of mixing into the tribal affairs and customs of a very proud and independent kind of people.

I think that it is not quite correct to pin something on the Liberals that wasn't part of the policy under which the troops were sent in the beginning.

The same argument is raging in Germany, where the majority of the people want the German troops to be brought back home, as the role of active combat instead of keeping a (non-existing) peace has met with almost universal opposition in Germany.

Harper however enthusiastically embraces this so-called opportunity to fall in line with the policies of Cheney/Bush who want to wage a war against *enemies* half-ways around the world.

They know what the real geo-political reasons are. I question whether Canada has to be supportive of these or not.

"As I recall all the Liberals ever did was channel money to their buddies."

Of course, Mr. Mulroney's and his party's ethics were as pure and white as the driven snow - however, my memory tells me otherwise.

How soon we forget, especially if our memory has disposal bins for things that we rather not remember at all.

I believe both the German population and the German government are willing to support the work the ISAF is supposed to be doing. They are not willing to support the US operation "enduring freedom" which is not there to keep the peace and build the nation, but to find that elusive Saudi supposed mastermind of 9/11.

At least their government and their press draw a distinction between the two. Harper, on the other hand, does not seem to be making any distinction.

I think you are entirely correct in your assessment of Germany's feelings in respect to Afghanistan.

The supposed mastermind of 9/11 is a Saudi and the super rich Saudi Bin Laden family always have been very good friends and financial mentors of a certain American family.

That could be a problem and an explanation of why the rather low key hunt for the most wanted has not been successful.

The most powerful nation in the world with the most sophisticated electronic satellite spying equipment, Predator drones and so forth can not track down and apprehend dead or alive this individual?

Israeli intelligence tracked down and killed all the Palestinian participants in the kidnapping of the Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich in just a few years - it didn't matter in which country they were hiding.

A couple of years ago Bush said that it is not his top priority and rather unimportant whether Osama Bin Laden is found or not.

I wonder why he said that.

Diplomat.

Cant argue with you on Mulroney. He was a natural born clutz and got what he deserved, however Harper is not cut from the same cloth.

When we talk of NATO and ISAF we should keep in mind that these forces are in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. While ISAF operates under UN Security Council resolutions, it is not a UN Security force. NATO took command of ISAF IN 2003.

The original mandate of ISAF was to secure Kabul and the immediate surrounding area. This has now been extended to most of Afghanistan.

Canada had troops in Afganistan (750 member infantry battalion from Jan to July 2002. Some of these troops were special forces operating with the Americans and some were snipers, who are on record as having killed 20 Taliban during this period. So in effect we were engaged in combat. This information has always been kept **low key** however its available if you care to look for it.

The Americans have approx 18000 troops within ISAF, however they also have 8000 troops that operate independently of ISAF, ostensibly to track down Osamas Bin Hiding.

Palopu. Good post. Harper may not be cut from the same cloth as Mulroney, but he doesn't listen to what the majority of Canadians want the government to do as far as Afghanistan is concerned.

If politicians (leaders) have such a superior intelligence and grasp of what countries really need and should do, why are there endless debacles and domestic/foreign policy failures?

Now we are stuck and committed to a combat role that was forced on us by choice and by circumstances.

Initially a decision was made to participate and if our present politicians can't or won't make a bold decision to disengage from combat and revert to a reconstruction and policing effort - well, I guess we have to live with the inescapable consequences.

I don't like Layton, but at least he has the guts to express what the vast majority of Canadians want.

Fortunately Chretien resisted U.S. pressure to commit Canada to a combat mission in Iraq, otherwise...really, unthinkable.

I would think that Harper would have been in there with the USA and Britain. We would now have a much higher number of casualties and be billions more in debt.

But at least we would have gotten rid of Harper and be back into more normal and humdrum ways of spending money locally greasing people's palms rather than greasing the palms of the USA and its complicit vigilante allies in Iraq.

I say that if there is any palm greasing to be done, keep it at home.

;-)

Wow Ladies & Gents....very interesting & thoughtful posts and much more interesting than some of the mud-sligging crap that wastes this space at times. Thanks for your insites and comments.