To hear the media tell it, one might be excused for thinking parliament is being held hostage by a Tory-Bloc conspiracy.
CBC News says Parliament shut down for 2nd day - Conservative and Bloc Québécois MPs joined forces to shut down Parliament for a second day Thursday.
Macleans says Tories, Bloc shut Parliament for day in effort to push government to defeat The opposition grabbed control of the House of Commons on Thursday, shut it down, and said the Governor General should move to trigger a federal election. . . They shut down Parliament first by announcing they would boycott parliamentary committees, then powered through a motion to close the House of Commons just before noon.
People accused Stephen Harper of wanting to send our troops to Iraq to stay 'in' with the Americans. I don't believe Harper came out and said that -- I believe he was being metaphorical when he suggested that we should 'stand shoulder to shoulder' with our American allies -- and he said that because Parliament voted not to support the Iraq war. (The question voted on was never -- should we send troops -- the question was -- do we believe the Americans have the right to go to war against Iraq).
Well, Stephen Harper may have been misguided in suggesting we support the Americans in that war, but I believe history will vindicate that opinion.
But nothing will ever vindicate Paul Martin for sending our troops to a hopelessly war-torn area with no mandate, no authority to create or keep the peace, no jurisdiction, and no clear terms of engagement. And all to keep his white-knuckled grip on power.
And, apparently, 100 troops is not enough to buy David Kilgour's vote, (link to CNEWS):
The Liberals' frailty was underscored when Independent MP David Kilgour demanded 500 Canadian soldiers be sent to Sudan. He warned that the Liberals might not get his key vote on the budget unless he sees enough Canadian boots on the ground in Darfur. He said he was unimpressed with Martin's promise to deploy up to 100 Canadian Forces personnel and hinted he might vote to defeat the government.
One man's ego and lifetime obsession with being Prime minister, is determining not just the fate of the nation, but the fate of hundreds of our soldiers. They are the newest pawns in his vile political games.
Bad enough he won't relent and hold the vote when the ill Conservative MPs can be there, but buying votes with the lives of our soldiers . . . Then again, "get power at all costs; keep power at all costs" is not the Liberal Manifesto for nothing.
Cheers,
canadianna
3 comments:
"But nothing will ever vindicate Paul Martin for sending our troops to a hopelessly war-torn area with no mandate, no authority to create or keep the peace, no jurisdiction, and no clear terms of engagement. And all to keep his white-knuckled grip on power."
Another Somalia in the making, perhaps?
The answer was "No, we do not beleive America has the right to go to war with Iraq".
How exactly does Canada "stand shoulder to shoulder" to the States without assisting in the war? Why would we assist anybody in an Illegal war?
Sudan = Somalia
Iraq = Vietnam
Peg city kid- you can stand 'shoulder to shoulder' in the sense that you have common goals and values. I would like to think our values are more in line with the US (regardless of what you may think of their present government) than with Russia, France and Germany (don't get me started about the oil-for-food, Algeria and the Ivory Coast etc).
We had exchange soldiers in front-line positions. We refused to even acknowledge them lest it go against the anti-war sentiment.
You're little math equation escapes me. I think Sudan=Rawanda is more accurate. And it is about as likely we will be able to accomplish anything.
Post a Comment