[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Valmy]

On another note, is committing suicide a stereotype for Chinese people in your part of the world?

Yeah, I didn't understand that reference at all.

Sorry on my bigotry fail.

[crazy canuck]

On another note, is committing suicide a stereotype for Chinese people in your part of the world?

Yeah, I didn't understand that reference at all.

Sorry on my bigotry fail.

The problem with your post is you seemed to be mocking the attempt to avoid racial stereotypes.

[Valmy]

The problem with your post is you seemed to be mocking the attempt to avoid racial stereotypes.

Mocking? No. Confused? Yes a bit. The rules on these things seem so fuzzy. I asked what the stigma or stereotype was that was so offensive. I mean lots of people wear silky robes with East asian characters on them. Is that offensive? Is the hat offensive? Would those things ordinarily not be offensive but doing it as a Halloween costume is?

I mean seriously did you find that shocking? How is that shocking? Or is this like how everything that is only kind of interesting is now incredible and awesome. Hyperbole overload.

[Grey Fox]

Halloween is for children. Grown ups should stop costuming themselves for it.

[Valmy]

Halloween is for children. Grown ups should stop costuming themselves for it.

Damn straight. Especially with all this political shit to worry about. Is it worth your career and reputation?

[Barrister]

So Justin is confirming that the airstrikes will end, but we'll put troops into Iraq to do training missions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-iraq-trainers-military-1.3322288

That... just doesn't make much sense.  Why are airplanes bad, but troops good?  It would be one thing if he said "we should not be involved in middle east conflicts".  That's a defensible position.  But substituting ground troops for airplanes just sounds like change for change's sake.

[crazy canuck]

I actually think putting ground troops in to train is the more risky and probably more effective strategy for Canada.  See my post above on the last page so I don't have to retype it all. 

[Valmy]

Nothing has yet changed regarding the bombing missions.  They are still being conducted as before.  Yes Trudeau has confirmed he will pull Canada out of that role but he has yet to do it.  On the other hand you appear to be agreeing with the logic of the Liberal strategy.  Our role in the air war is rather insignificant so there is no real purpose in continuing it.  Also ironically your position about needing more boots on the ground is exactly what the Liberal strategy calls for.  They have committed to put troops in the area to train Kurdish and Iraqi troops.  There are of course big risks with this strategy that the Conservatives were not willing to take.  Putting our troops near the fight increasing the chances they will be involved in the fighting even if they are there ostensibly only to train others.  Also, the chances of Canada being drawn into a ground war increases once we commit to this course of action.

Remember when we were just going to send a few military advisers and helicopters to Vietnam? Fortunately IS is pretty wimpy compared to the NVA.

[Jacob]

So dressing up like Ghengis Khan = okay since that is a specific person but dressing up like a Mongol Warrior = offensive? Or is it best just to avoid dressing up like people all together? Yet another reason I hate Halloween and never dress up. Worst holiday ever.

I don't know, dude. Hallowe'en isn't my holiday, and I'm not invested in the particulars of carrying it out. I was just telling you why it's considered offensive, since you asked.

If you're looking for someone to argue the position and convince you that it's offensive, or alternately to be convinced of the inverse, that'll have to be someone else, though. If you don't find any takers on languish, I'm sure you can find some elsewhere - there's definitely a large number of articles and posts out there that lay out the position and its reasons.

[Valmy]

So dressing up like Ghengis Khan = okay since that is a specific person but dressing up like a Mongol Warrior = offensive? Or is it best just to avoid dressing up like people all together? Yet another reason I hate Halloween and never dress up. Worst holiday ever.

I don't know, dude. Hallowe'en isn't my holiday, and I'm not invested in the particulars of carrying it out. I was just telling you why it's considered offensive, since you asked.

If you're looking for someone to argue the position and convince you that it's offensive, or alternately to be convinced of the inverse, that'll have to be someone else, though. If you don't find any takers on languish, I'm sure you can find some elsewhere - there's definitely a large number of articles and posts out there that lay out the position and its reasons.

Yeah and they are generally contradictory and arbitrary. I guess now in addition to regular suckiness of Halloween it is going to be 'right wing people dress up in racist costumes to get the left wingers all riled up' annual special combined with 'costume person thought was innocent makes them an object of international ridicule'. The culture wars really ruin everything.

[viper37]

Nothing has yet changed regarding the bombing missions.  They are still being conducted as before.  Yes Trudeau has confirmed he will pull Canada out of that role but he has yet to do it.

He has yet to do it because he wants to convene parliament to vote on it first.  He will get the NDP's support, the Cons will oppose, so he will look like the defender of Canada's values vs the warmongerers.  He will try his best to further alienate the Conservatives from the population, as he's been doing since his election.

On the other hand you appear to be agreeing with the logic of the Liberal strategy.  Our role in the air war is rather insignificant so there is no real purpose in continuing it.

No, I am repeating the statements made by Dion on his Sunday's interview.
My reflection is that 2% is insignificant for warfare and warrants doing nothing while in the case of global warming, Harper was seen as the destroyer of the world for refusing to act more agressively, even if we were contributing only for 2% of greenhouse gaz emissions.
My position has not changed on both subjects: Canada needs to do its part.

Also ironically your position about needing more boots on the ground is exactly what the Liberal strategy calls for.  They have committed to put troops in the area to train Kurdish and Iraqi troops.

They don't want Canadian troops near the fighting zones.  They want Canadian troops to train people that do not want our training.
The Iraquis have been trained by the US for years.  The Peshmerga do not want training.  Canadian soldiers are already there to train them, and they refuse our training.  They want weapons, ammo, equipment and airstrikes.

There are of course big risks with this strategy that the Conservatives were not willing to take.  Putting our troops near the fight increasing the chances they will be involved in the fighting even if they are there ostensibly only to train others.  Also, the chances of Canada being drawn into a ground war increases once we commit to this course of action.

euh, the Conservatives did exactly that + send our CF-18. The Liberals and the NDP were the ones complaining that our soldiers were engaged in a fighting mission.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/special-forces-isis-iraq-combat-1.3318451

The combat question is significant because in opposition, Justin Trudeau accused the Conservative government of misleading Canadians by not disclosing the fact that special forces advisers were at the front lines engaging in the directing of bombs against ISIS targets. The Liberals defined this as combat, as have former generals since then.
The party opposed the extension and expansion of this combat mission, in part because of the government's alleged deception.


The Conservative governement sending advisers & special forces = bad.
The Liberal government sending advisers & special forces = good.

So far, same old stories as under Chrétien.

[viper37]

I mean seriously did you find that shocking? How is that shocking? Or is this like how everything that is only kind of interesting is now incredible and awesome. Hyperbole overload.

This is extremely shocking:

[viper37]

I actually think putting ground troops in to train is the more risky and probably more effective strategy for Canada.  See my post above on the last page so I don't have to retype it all. 

New mandate letters issued to ministers Friday included instructions to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan to "end Canada's combat mission in Iraq and Syria, refocusing Canada's efforts in the region on the training of local forces and humanitarian support."

[viper37]

Nothing has yet changed regarding the bombing missions.  They are still being conducted as before.  Yes Trudeau has confirmed he will pull Canada out of that role but he has yet to do it.  On the other hand you appear to be agreeing with the logic of the Liberal strategy.  Our role in the air war is rather insignificant so there is no real purpose in continuing it.  Also ironically your position about needing more boots on the ground is exactly what the Liberal strategy calls for.  They have committed to put troops in the area to train Kurdish and Iraqi troops.  There are of course big risks with this strategy that the Conservatives were not willing to take.  Putting our troops near the fight increasing the chances they will be involved in the fighting even if they are there ostensibly only to train others.  Also, the chances of Canada being drawn into a ground war increases once we commit to this course of action.

Remember when we were just going to send a few military advisers and helicopters to Vietnam? Fortunately IS is pretty wimpy compared to the NVA.

NVA had the support of Russia and China, IS has support all over the muslim world.
And just to please Grallon's paranoia:
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]

[Valmy]

There are Belgian soldiers in Syria?