Check out my previous posts, specifically concerning the potential shift in policy from keeping clear of the Iraq conflict to providing training for Iraqis. That is a huge shift in policy.
Bush personifies involvement in Iraq. It is far more effective when protesting to hold up Bush as such a personification than to hold up a bunch of fine print. Leave that to the pundits that will be discussing the visit and the protests, and in their discussions set out what the protestors believe Bush to stand for with regard to Canadian policy.
I would rather see our resources put to equally beneficial effect in other problem areas of the world, and let the USA clean up its own mess that it caused despite our strenuous objection.
That’s not an answer. Whatever the initial event which precipitated the possibility and regardless of whether you supported that event do you or do you not now want to deny Canada’s excellent police training to those Iraqis who want to see democracy succeed there?
You can do whatever you want, but isn’t specifically choosing to engage in a protest march in a place devoid of the people and policies you are protesting kind of a strange way to express your beliefs?
I mean, who are you protesting TO? It’s not that hard to get to Ottawa, but if you can’t make it, it just strikes me as being a strange way of expressing your beliefs. It’s like protesting against the policies of the government of British Columbia by marching in Fredericton.
As you must realize, we have limited resources, and there more than enough areas in the world in which we can be of use. To help the Americans with their Iraq problem means that we must take from other other needy causes. To coach your query in terms such as “deny” misses the point entirely, for if we do not deny one party, then we end up denying another.
In reality, the USA has more than enough resources to train the Iraqis, and has no practical need for our limited resources, so it is not a question of the Iraquis being denied anything. They will recieve what the USA want them to receive, whether it is provided by the USA or by other nations.
The only thing that may be denied is the supporting of Bush and his administration, which is looking for world favour.
Tell me, have you stoped beating your wife? A pretty dumb thing to say, right? Well, your query is equally dumb.
The federal government, the Members of Parliament, and the people of Canada, all via the media, for the media will cover any significant protests, be they in Ottawa, Toronto, or Eureka.
It appeared to me that Brutus is one of those “eh what’s the point there’s nothing you can do” type of people. I should have found a better way to convey my point. I doubt I offended anyone, but if I did I apologize.
Bullshit. Canada ain’t some third-world backwater or even a second-world struggling incipient democracy. It’s among the richest countries in the world and a long-time leader in peacekeeping operations. Among the areas in which Canada has gained specific talent is the training of police officers. Seriously, you guys are the best in the world at it and you never turn down a good-faith request.
It wouldn’t be a dumb thing to say if wifebeating were a necessary talent in the world and I was the world’s best at it.
Know what I think? I think the suspicion upon which I based my earlier question is entirely correct. You, personally, want to see democracy in Iraq fail. You want the terrorists and fundamentalist Ismamists to take over the country for the sick and small-minded reason that it would feed and justify your personal hatred of President Bush. You know that applying Canada’s considerable talents to making things right there would go a long way toward creating a viable democracy, but you’d rather risk sending 25 million people into the shitter than do something which risks making Bush look less an ogre than you believe him to be. Instead of protesting Bush you should protest a fuckin’ mirror.
Thankfully, I also believe you to be in the minority of Canadians in that regard.
Well, there’s been nothing on the local news so far except for a 20-second report on the CBS affiliate that showed about five seconds of protestors (no close-ups, no way to read any signs).
The BBC World News had about two minutes on it, most of it showing Bush talking to Martin and Martin’s reply.
CNN had Carolyn Parrish on vs. Tucker Carlson. Serves them both right.
If the motivation were fear, I’d understand it. Not necessarily agree, but I could at least see it. Fear is clearly not the motivation, at least in Muffin’s case.
Update, National News shows: ABC and NBC leading with 9/11 Commission, CBS with Canucks; now NBC is using it as the second story, mostly quoting Bush and Martin. Bush joked about the protestors and the CBS report made them look kind of nutty.
CNN said that Reagan was heckled, Clinton not, so I guess they’re worried about anti-Repub bias.
I agree with you there, I don’t understand the motivation. It should be “don’t get yourself into stupid adventures expecting the world to bail you out at the slightest beckoning.”
In fantasy world this sort of attitude towards us would make the US think twice about doing what we do.
No, I want to encourage them to do something more than just say what they believe and act as though it did something to change the world. Did MLK read the “I Have A Dream” speech and just go home satisfied that he expressed himself’? Did the signers of the Declaration of Independance just go home after signing the document happy that they expressed themselves? No. Expressing yourself is a good thing. Expressing yourself and backing it up with action is much better. While ‘expressing yourself’ can make someone feel all warm and fuzzy inside it generally doesn’t do jack to change anything.
