babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Parrish to rejoin Liberals?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Parrish to rejoin Liberals?
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 July 2005 10:16 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Carolyn Parrish, the former Liberal MP who stomped on a doll bearing the likeness of U.S. President George W. Bush and was kicked out of caucus for her anti-American statements, is negotiating with senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office and the party to return to the Liberal fold.

"I am having discussions with some members of the party, but a lot of my colleagues want me back," she said in an interview yesterday.

The outspoken member of Parliament for Mississauga, Ont., said she will make up her mind by the new year.

. . . .

Senior Liberals fear that Ms. Parrish, who is popular in her Mississauga constituency, could win her seat in the next election as an Independent, or take away enough votes from the Liberal candidate to allow a Conservative to win.


http://tinyurl.com/78aub


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 26 July 2005 11:28 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm so glad that Paul Wells keeps track of these things.

quote:
Refresher course

"It has been obvious for many months that I have been extremely unhappy with the tone and direction of the current Liberal Party and government under the leadership of Paul Martin. I accept fully that my long held views and positions are incompatible with the current government. On balance, my leaving the Liberal Caucus is the only appropriate action...

"The current governing party has systematically rejected traditional liberalism in a quest to gain favour with the United States — and perhaps former Progressive Conservative supporters.

"Paul Martin's ascension to the leadership of the Liberal party was marked with intrigue, intimidation and the de-facto ousting of almost all who disagreed with his positions... In fact Paul Martin led a shadow government within Chrétien's term of office... Surrounded by sycophants and backed by a largely neutered caucus, Mr. Martin's crew is now free — subject only to the minority government status — to run this government with virtually no dissent...

"I fully intend to run as an independent liberal in the next federal election."

— Carolyn Parrish, Nov. 19, 2004. The full text of this news release is currently unavailable on Ms. Parrish's website.



From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 26 July 2005 12:14 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An article on Parrish's resignation and the full text of her letter are here, at the Hill Times site. Google can find no trace of it on Parrish's own site.

[ 26 July 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 26 July 2005 06:45 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This has been long in the works. Ever since Parrish made private and then public assurances that she would vote to save the Liberal government, this has been the tacit pay back.

Parrish wants to keep her job. She is truly a Liberal (a Chrétien one at least).


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 26 July 2005 09:16 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Josh's opening post in this thread left out the most significant part of the Globe article - the part where Parrish denounces General Hillier:
quote:
“This man is purporting to speak on behalf of the government, and I think he's dangerous.

"I'm totally offended by him. . . . We are also not a country that is going to easily throw away 100 years of peacekeeping reputation and noble reputation in the world by a testosterone-filled general, and I think somebody should put a clamp on his mouth."

She has complained to Defence Minister Bill Graham about the general's comments.



Parrish puts Jack Layton to shame on this issue. She's the only MP who has had the guts to point out the obvious about Hillier.

Remember Jack's response to Hillier's rant about killing "scumbags" in Afghanistan? Layton found such "controlled anger, given what has happened" to be "an appropriate response ... We have a very committed, level-headed head of our Armed Forces who isn't afraid to express the passion that underlies the mission that front-line personnel are going to be taking on."


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 27 July 2005 12:41 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was very proud of Ms. Parrish for her vocal views on that war mad monkey Hillier. I wish Layton would have beat him up a little more. This mad man deserves all the vitriol he gets.
From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jim James
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9983

posted 27 July 2005 12:46 AM      Profile for Jim James        Edit/Delete Post
I think she is keeping true to her word.

She is not going to not let an "Ovarian Cyst" not bring down this government.

God Bless the NDP.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 27 July 2005 05:29 AM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, good for Parrish on Hillier.

I think she's broken the ice on this one.

It was strange to see everyone lining up behind the General though. I thought that didn't usually happen in Canada.


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
warpedhalo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10006

posted 27 July 2005 09:03 PM      Profile for warpedhalo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think she made herself look like an idiot by saying "100 years of peacekeeping reputation."

I guess those world wars don't count. Or the fact that Canada's first peacekeeping mission wasn't until the late 1940's.

She can be as critical as she wants, but when she says stuff like that then she just makes herself look bad.


From: Alberta | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
A Giant Gopher
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10002

posted 27 July 2005 09:34 PM      Profile for A Giant Gopher     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Stupid ____________, I hate those bastards". Now which nationalities can we fill that blank in with without offending the thought police?
How come Carolyn never got revved up about our precious peacekeeping reputation when Paul martin was prepared to send young Canadian soldiers to die in Darfour for one vote that would save his corrupt hide? Seems odd how that 'top priority' went off the radar screen at the exact same instant that Kilgour said he wouldn't vote to save the Libranos. Didn't that damage our reputation as peacekeepers? I guess one of our new 'Canadian values' is that our government couldn't give a shit about anyone anywhere unless there is some political benefit for the liberal party.
Why wasn't Parrish flapping her pie hole over that disgrace? Or with the Tsunami aid joke?

From: BC | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 27 July 2005 09:52 PM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is it just me or were the last two posts incoherent? Probably just me, my head is kinda in bad shape from my head ache.

Sorta was just me... but when dissing someone over a peacekeeping time error shouldn't make one of their own. The first "peacekeeping" mission was in 1957.

[ 27 July 2005: Message edited by: Hawkins ]


From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 27 July 2005 09:56 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Awww. Ain't they cute?


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
warpedhalo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10006

posted 27 July 2005 10:02 PM      Profile for warpedhalo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually the first peacekeeping mission was in 1948, supervising the ceasefire between Israel and its Arab neighbors. But a peacekeeping force wasn't formed until 1956. Canada suffered its first peacekeeping casualty in 1950.
From: Alberta | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 27 July 2005 10:29 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's Wells again.

quote:
It's official!

There is now no issue too trivial for the National Citizens' Coalition to spout off about:

"NCC Urging Liberals to Keep Parrish Out (Toronto July 27, 2005)

"The National Citizens Coalition says it may run a media campaign urging Prime Minister Paul Martin to keep Carolyn Parrish out of the Liberal caucus.

"'Prime Minister Martin kicked Parrish out of his caucus because her behaviour was intolerably crude and crass,' says NCC vice president Gerry Nicholls. 'Her recent attack on General Rick Hillier indicates that she has not changed. Allowing her back into the governing party would be bad for Canada.'

"Nicholls says that’s why his group may try to mobilize public opinion to urge the Liberal Party to keep Parrish out of the governing caucus."

etc., etc.....zzzzzzzzz

——————————

Note the use of the word "may." The NCC has now actually put out a news release announcing that it hasn't decided what to do about something that barely matters.

Guys: It's seriously vacation time.



From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 27 July 2005 10:34 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
Here's Wells again.


[QUOTE] Note the use of the word "may." The NCC has now actually put out a news release announcing that it hasn't decided what to do about something that barely matters.



[/QUOTE]

Sounds like they need a full-time president to give them focus. Any idea where they could find one?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 27 July 2005 10:42 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Sounds like they need a full-time president to give them focus. Any idea where they could find one?

Surely Gerry Nicholls is due for a promotion by now. Or, maybe they've been holding Harper's job open for him because they were expecting him to, er, fumble.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 28 July 2005 02:05 PM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by warpedhalo:
Actually the first peacekeeping mission was in 1948, supervising the ceasefire between Israel and its Arab neighbors. But a peacekeeping force wasn't formed until 1956. Canada suffered its first peacekeeping casualty in 1950.

Well Ill be. Sorry about the snide comment.


From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 28 July 2005 06:26 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I think Parrish is right her general idea of "peace-keeping reputation"

Canada fought in WWI and WII, but there were a myriad of other imperial entanglements that we kept out of.

For example, Laurier resisted pressure to send Canadian troops to Khartoum and to the Boer War. I believe there had also been lots of pressure from Britain to get involved in Turkey and the Crimea as well.


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 28 July 2005 06:36 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canada did send troops to the Boer War.
quote:
...October 14 will mark the 100th anniversary of Canada’s decision to send soldiers overseas for the first time. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Prime Minister, issued an order-in-council to avoid a debate in parliament.

The result? Canada would equip and send soldiers, and Britain would pay for them once they got to South Africa.

In the end, 8,300 Canadians served, with 242 killed in action, including the only son of Militia Minister Fred Borden. Canadian soldiers won four Victoria Crosses, Britain’s highest military award...


according to a 1999 article.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 July 2005 06:41 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Parrish's letter to Bill Graham:

"We know Bush's 'War on Terrorism' has killed thousands.... For the top General in this country to emulate the simplistic phrasing of Mr. Bush, on behalf of you and our government, is to degrade the hard-earned reputation of this country and its people. I am shocked that you have tolerated it."


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
A Giant Gopher
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10002

posted 28 July 2005 06:43 PM      Profile for A Giant Gopher     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is it okay if I refer to Parrish as a post-menopausal cow? It would be similar to her comments, no? What are the rules on hormonal bigotry?
quote:
We are also not a country that is going to easily throw away 100 years of peacekeeping reputation and noble reputation in the world by a testosterone-filled general, and I think somebody should put a clamp on his mouth."

From: BC | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3472

posted 28 July 2005 07:32 PM      Profile for Nam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No AGG, it wouldn't okay.
From: Calgary-Land of corporate towers | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
A Giant Gopher
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10002

posted 28 July 2005 07:49 PM      Profile for A Giant Gopher     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So a man afflicted with testosterone is okay to bash but no bashing women about hormonal problems? Wouldn't that be a tad sexist, implying that men are stronger and able to take a bit of bashing over their hormones while women are more delicate and therefore need a more protection?
The PC police aren't going to like that.

From: BC | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
A longsuffering conservative
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9425

posted 28 July 2005 07:58 PM      Profile for A longsuffering conservative     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's it Paul! Please, please, take Carolyn back into the Liberal caucus.

Poetic justice as far as I'm concerned. He will rue the day if he lets her back into caucus. They quite simply deserve each other, and I for one, will enjoy every splendid moment of it!


From: The Sovereignist Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 28 July 2005 08:13 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
May I copy here a post I just made on Free Dominion (the Dark Side, in Babble parlance)?

Well heck, I just will anyway. Here it is -

"I personally would far prefer that rather than Parrish criticizing America, the Prime Minister of Canada would stand up and in no uncertain terms, on the record, officially, tell Americans that they are mass murderers and torturers and imperialist ignorant fools and Canada will have nothing to do with them until some sliver of human decency and sanity returns to America. Having said that, let me thank you, JBG, for the Phillip S. Goub piece. Are you secretly trying to educate FD readers?"

Thanks, that felt good.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
warpedhalo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10006

posted 28 July 2005 08:14 PM      Profile for warpedhalo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I listened to her on the radio today being interviewed by Rob Breckenridge. She says she has no intention of rejoining the party and will run as an independent in the next election.

So if the Libs run a candidate against her it could mean they'll both be s.o.l. depending on how bad the votes get split. She did quite well in the last election but I wonder if that was based on her own character or the strength of the party she was in at the time.


From: Alberta | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jim James
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9983

posted 28 July 2005 08:54 PM      Profile for Jim James        Edit/Delete Post
Carolyn Parrish is a loud mouthed DitchPig.

I wouldn't shed a tear for her if she lost the last election. I hate bastards like her.

Its funny, to compare the Liberal female MP's like Screamin Annie Mc , departed Tequila Sheila, Hedy Fry to the likes of the articulate Conservative female MP's. Even the NDP with the likes of Alexa McDonough, have some women to be respected.

I wonder how long before Belindarella is assimilated and becomes a screaming bitch.

God Bless the NDP.

edited to correct name of NDP member.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Jim James ]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 28 July 2005 08:56 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
God save little shops, china cups and virginity.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 28 July 2005 08:57 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Contrarian,

"Canada" did not send troops to the Boer War. Laurier equipped a volunteer force specifically raised for the purpose, paid for by Britain.

This was my original point -- Canada has always been balanced in its approach to military action abroad -- not just an enforcer for the biggest kid on the block.

Parrish's description of General Hillier as "testosterone filled" is partially warranted by the facts. In a talk a few days after the famous "murders and scumbag" quote -- Hillier pointed to picture of Leafs enforcer Tie Domi, and said this is what the Canadian Forces is all about.

That is where I believe the General is wrong. Being imperial enforcers is not what our military is all about.


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jim James
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9983

posted 28 July 2005 09:00 PM      Profile for Jim James        Edit/Delete Post
Canada's military is all about the way we acted in Rawanda.

We should just stand by and do nothing while people get murdered, rather than kill the murderers.

Just to have our troops there to watch the slaughter under the UN's controlis comfort enough to the Canadian public.

God Bless the NDP and all pacifists. !


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 28 July 2005 09:03 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jim James:
to compare the Liberal female MP's like [edited for misogyny] to the likes of the articulate Conservative female MP's. I wonder how long before Belindarella is assimilated.... [edited for extreme if typical misogyny]

Interesting that the only "articulate" Conservative MP you can think to mention by name is one who went over to the Liberals. Although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you may not have meant to imply that Belinda Stronach is "articulate."

Finally, you might want to pay attention to some of these MPs, and learn from them how you can be "articulate" yourself. Might I humbly suggest that at present, you are not.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
flower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7965

posted 28 July 2005 09:06 PM      Profile for flower     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Carolyn Parrish would have my vote. She is the only one who has stood up and spoken the truth. Our military should not be talking like politicians. If he has to talk to his soldiers in this manner to make them feel better about fighting so be it.
From: victoria,b.c. | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 28 July 2005 09:08 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jim James:
Canada's military is all about the way we acted in Rawanda.

We should just stand by and do nothing while people get murdered, rather than kill the murderers.

Just to have our troops there to watch the slaughter under the UN's controlis comfort enough to the Canadian public.

God Bless the NDP and all pacifists. !



How be you grab a clue, start by reading Roméo Dallaire's excellent book "Shake Hands With the Devil. If that's too hard trying watching "Hotel Rwanda" then get back to us on what a big asshole you are.

From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 28 July 2005 09:11 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Left J.A.B., I think JJ already knows what an asshole he is, and he's having fun being one.

Flower, I agree: Carolyn Parrish is somewhat like a Winston Churchill for our time, a voice in the wilderness about the militaristic government to the south of us, about their lack of democracy at home and their designs abroad.

Churchill perhaps put his concerns more eloquently than Parrish does, at least in the quotes of Parrish's I've seen that have made the headlines - I don't know whether they're representative of what she says and how she says it. And he may have had better leadership skills. Again, I don't know enough about Parrish on this front.

But like Parrish in Canada today, Churchill was also regarded as a joke by many Britons in the 1930s, as someone given to extreme pronouncements. He left and later rejoined the Conservative party.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 July 2005 09:18 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jim James, enough with the sexist epithets or your visit will be a short one.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jim James
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9983

posted 28 July 2005 10:28 PM      Profile for Jim James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Jim James, enough with the sexist epithets or your visit will be a short one.

Ah, yes, possibly that was just a bit over the top but A.G.G. got me going. Sorry that I put my thoughts on Caroline down in such an expressive way.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jim James
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9983

posted 28 July 2005 10:58 PM      Profile for Jim James        Edit/Delete Post
Excuse me Michelle. Uh, Hello Michelle.

Left J.A.B. - Just called me an asshole !!!!

Hello....... waiting for you to dispense justice Please ????


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 28 July 2005 11:01 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
Hey, newbie Jim James, read the rules. You have to alert the moderators by PM or email. *snort*
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 July 2005 11:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, after you spend the whole thread trolling for it. Maybe if you start posting within babble policy, then you won't piss everyone off.

But yes, everyone else, it would be more constructive to PM me if you think someone is trolling, okay?

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
A Giant Gopher
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10002

posted 28 July 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for A Giant Gopher     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why didn't Canada put a stop to the butchery in Rwanda? Did we need another decade or so to study the problem before we actually acted? What happened to our proud peacekeeping tradition there? That is part of the proud peacekeeping tradition that Parrish is flapping her pie hole about, isn't it?
From: BC | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 28 July 2005 11:37 PM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jim James:
Left J.A.B. - Just called me an asshole !!!!

actually - left J.A.B. called you a "big asshole". and to that i agree. sue me. (or pm the moderator, ya' suck. 14 big posts and you've already identified yourself pretty clearly. i'm with michelle on this one - you won't be here long. but i need not be quite so diplomatic as she, and rarely am.)

so parrish is a cow for speaking her mind, and having convictions that don't jibe with conservatives, eh? ooooo! how unCOOOOTH?!

you can't have it both ways JJ. she got elected more than once for speaking her mind. she got fired for speaking her mind. and she'll win as an independant for staying true to her word. she's more savy than you think, and won't board a sinking ship. her constituency will elect her if she runs for any party other than the conservatives, even as an independant.

and that's if she runs. mississauga is canada's fifth largest city, i believe, and the current mayor is getting on. she's biding time, and will have that high profile post eventually. she could do more good there than as a near-stifled cabinet minister, backbencher, or independant.

suck it up. she's somewhere, and going somewhere. and you are...? that's right. NOWHERE - BITTER MAN.


From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
A Giant Gopher
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10002

posted 29 July 2005 01:18 PM      Profile for A Giant Gopher     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe Parrish should look at the facts before she raves on about Canada being a nation of peacekeepers. Sounds like we're just a bunch of blow asses who talk lots and do nothing.
quote:
In fact, why don’t we practise anything we preach? As of May 2005, the top contributors to UN operations were Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal at Number 4, good grief, and they’re practically on the brink of civil war. Well, okay, we’re not in the Top 10 with all that expendable Asian manpower but c’mon, we must be in there somewhere . . . Number 20) France; 24) Ireland; 29) United Kingdom; 30) United States . . . hey, how’d those two warmongers make the Top 30 peacekeepers? Wait a minute, here we are: Canada, rocketing into the Hit Parade at 33 with a lack of bullet, right between Togo and Turkey. But, to the best of my knowledge, Togo and Benin (28) and Senegal (12) don’t regard peacekeeping as so indispensable to their self-image that they stick it on their currency and brag about it in beer commercials.

So we’re no longer a great military nation. But nor are we a great peacekeeping nation: we do less than notorious sabre-rattlers like Britain and America. Compared to the Scandinavians and the other niceniks we’re a poor aid donor, and our immobile rapid-reaction force is of no practical use in humanitarian crises. M. Chrétien’s legacy-building Africa initiative of 2002 is known only to Canadians. Everywhere else, it’s credited as Tony Blair’s Africa initiative. We have less influence internationally than we did in the 1940s--before we had a flag, an anthem, or our own citizenship. Even if the Trudeaupian vision of Canada were sufficient for a national identity, it suffers from the basic defect of being a bald-faced lie.



http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=872

From: BC | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 29 July 2005 04:41 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
First of all - Good Day Folks.
The views I express herein will be made in such a manner that if my Mother were to read them, and disagree, she would not withhold dessert.

quote:
Originally posted by obscurantist:
...Carolyn Parrish is somewhat like a Winston Churchill for our time, a voice in the wilderness about the militaristic government to the south of us, about their lack of democracy at home and their designs abroad.

I cannot agree with that analogy in any way.

Whereas Churchill had real reason to derogate Nazi Germany - due the wellspring of their ideology - Carolyn Parrish voices little more than sociopathic posturings against America, Americans - and President Bush in particular.
That she blatantly echoes the American Democratic party line in the name of 28000 Canadians is particularly galling.

quote:
Churchill perhaps put his concerns more eloquently than Parrish does, at least in the quotes of Parrish's I've seen that have made the headlines - I don't know whether they're representative of what she says and how she says it.

Parrish maintains a web page which not only mirrors what has made headlines, but is a study in megalomania.
eg.
April 2003
My comment [Americans are bastards] was flip, not calculated or pre-meditated. Of course, I regret it immensely. America is a valued neighbour, going through very difficult times.

August 2004
"Keep my mouth shut? That's not what 28,000 people in my riding elected me to do," said Parrish.
"We are not joining a coalition of the idiots," she said. "We are joining a coalition of the wise."

October 2004
Today, Americans are mired in Iraq and increasingly fearful at home.  They are becoming more isolationist – tightening borders, suspending civil liberties and straining relations with traditional allies.  Reminiscent of the “America First” policies prevalent early in World War II, they are feared in some parts of the world and disparaged in others.

November 2004
Those who want to make huge bucks and not worry about where they're coming from go to the States. And we're glad to be rid of them.

quote:
And he may have had better leadership skills. Again, I don't know enough about Parrish on this front.

While both Churchill and Parrish have visited the front lines of conflict their respective nations became involved in - Churchill the trenches of WW1, and Parrish the war-torn 'promised land' - the former came away enlightened by the sacrifice of his countrymen and allies, the latter inculcated with the cause of those opposed to her countrymen and allies.

quote:

But like Parrish in Canada today, Churchill was also regarded as a joke by many Britons in the 1930s, as someone given to extreme pronouncements.

While true that Churchill's views on retaining India as a colonial subject were ignored by most, and ridiculed by many - including party leader Baldwin - they were also accurate in forecasting the bloodbath which followed Britain's withdrawal from command of that country.
His personal dislike of Ghandi was enhanced by Ghandi's apparel, and was akin to the disdain held today by those who despise burkas.

Churchill's views on the scourge of Bolshevism were prescient, and it is a measure of his greatness that he was able to set aside his personal feelings toward Communism until the evil of National Socialism was expunged from Europe.

Parrish is a small-minded bigot whose tongue is connected to her lung.
It is embarrasing to all Canadians that her duties as Chair of the all-party Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association were removed due her 'Americans are bastards' comment, and even moreso that she blamed conspiracy against her as the cause.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 29 July 2005 06:15 PM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
1)...That she blatantly echoes the American Democratic party line in the name of 28000 Canadians is particularly galling.

2)...Parrish is a small-minded bigot whose tongue is connected to her lung...


1) i'm not in her riding, i didn't vote for her, yet she does echo my sentiments. i suggest she speaks for more than only 28,000 canadians when she points out that bush is a moron, and that the neo-nine are on an imperialistic crusade.

furthurmore - how can she be accused of echoing the american democratic party line? she actually says something.

2) no dessert for you. 8OP

lovingly,
mom


From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 29 July 2005 06:30 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course Parrish is no Winston Churchill. But it is pretty bizarre to think she echoes the U.S. democratic party line.

I'll decide whether she represents her constituents or not by the results of the elections, not on someone's anonymous say-so.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 29 July 2005 07:01 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Of course Parrish is no Winston Churchill. ...

I put the idea out there as an arguing point. As an analogy, it's not ideal, and is to some degree futile, given that we don't know how the "war on terror" will play out.

In an age when almost everyone in Britain was terrified of another war, Churchill was seen as a warmonger, with some justification. You could argue that he turned out to be right in hindsight and by accident. He relished the prospect of another war with Germany, partly because it offered a chance to redeem himself after the disastrous Dardanelles campaign that he headed in World War I.

By contrast, Parrish is an opponent of military adventurism. You could say she's more like Chamberlain and others who sought to use reason and negotiation in fighting the Nazis. They turned out to be horribly wrong, of course, but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing if I'd been in their position, twenty years after the end of a particularly horrific war, and not knowing the full extent of the even greater horror that lay ahead.

Still, the difference between the 1930s and today is that in virtually all Western countries back then, the peace / appeasement faction dominated, while the war party is much stronger in many Western countries today (admittedly not all of them, and admittedly not Canada, at least not yet, although this may be changing). Parrish, like Churchill, is an iconoclast.

I suppose I'm getting my analogies tangled up here, so I should try to clarify them. Churchill opposed Naziism and Soviet communism, but saw Hitler as the greater threat. Parrish opposes US imperialism / militarism. Hopefully she also opposes Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism. However, she might agree with my perspective that the Republicans' policies, like Naziism, represent the greater threat. One difference between then and now is that it doesn't make any sense for democratic countries opposed to the Bush agenda to form a strategic alliance with the Islamist terrorists, while a democratic / Stalinist alliance did make sense for the few years it was needed to defeat the Nazis.

But who can say what will happen over the next several years or decades? If the US, with or without major allies, continues on its present course globally, if it becomes even more of a fascist state domestically - what should Canadians do then? If pressured to follow the US in their so-called war on terror, should we give in to our powerful and potentially threatening southern neighbours? Should we try to hold the middle ground even if it shrinks to almost nothing? Should we take a vocal stand against American policies, and give sanctuary to American dissidents? Standing up to the US militarily may be impractical, but should we be willing to consider doing that anyway?

These are awkward questions. The answers aren't easy. Taking a principled approach to them is risky, but so is taking a pragmatic approach. That's not all that different from the situation in the 1930s, where placating and confronting Hitler were strategies that both contained significant risks.

[ 29 July 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 29 July 2005 07:21 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unmaladroit:
1) i'm not in her riding, i didn't vote for her, yet she does echo my sentiments.

My condolences to you.

quote:
i suggest she speaks for more than only 28,000 canadians when she points out that bush is a moron, ...

Actually, it was the (unelected) Francoise Ducros, image link
- Chretien's disgraced 'Director of Communications' - who communicated the remark that delighted the like-minded Canadians for whom you speak.

She wasn't much use after exposing her ignorance about how the media works outside suspicionville, was she ?

quote:
...and that the neo-nine are on an imperialistic crusade.

Now you're stuffing your own words in Ms. Parrish's mouth...hardly necessary, wot ?
The cause you espouse as belonging to others only exposes your own colonial crusade.

quote:
lovingly, mom

That's for the warm welcome.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 29 July 2005 08:33 PM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post
"wot?" you've identified yourself so soon? it won't be long before i hear "asshat", "conspiracy theorist", and "tinfoil brigade" spewing out of your "applepie hole".
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
She wasn't much use after exposing her ignorance about how the media works outside suspicionville, was she ?.

i don't know. was she?

i can't tell what ms. ducros is doing now. from what i understand of her position as director of communications for the pmo, she wasn't ignorant of how the media worked - she just had disdain for them. she didn't like their game, and didn't "communicate" with them to their favour. so the media retaliated when they heard her mutter the moron word. she didn't "communicate" the word - she muttered it under her breath. maybe it's revenge that is sweet in your world. in mine - it's speaking one's mind that is sweet.

you're right about carolyn parrish not saying the word moron, at least not to my knowledge. my apologies to her. she called the american farce a coalition of the idiots as opposed to the coaltion of the willingly coerced. thanks for reminding me. may i remind you that turkey turned down $12billion in exchange for their territory being used as a launching pad?

as far as putting words in ms. parrish's mouth, there's this nifty little grammatical feature in the english language called quotation marks. i have the liberty to use them at my discretion, and the right to paraphrase. you have the ability to see that there are no quotation marks. besides - i am karnac. i can see all.


From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 29 July 2005 09:51 PM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The National Citizens Coalition says it may run a media campaign urging Prime Minister Paul Martin to keep Carolyn Parrish out of the Liberal caucus. etc., etc.....zzzzzzzzz
——————————
Note the use of the word "may." The NCC has now actually put out a news release announcing that it hasn't decided what to do about something that barely matters.

Sounds like they need a full-time president to give them focus. Any idea where they could find one?


It's easy for us to mock, but someoneapparently takes it seriously when the NCC publicly considers threatening to urge someone to do something.


From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 29 July 2005 09:55 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unmaladroit:
"wot?" you've identified yourself so soon? it won't be long before i hear "asshat", "conspiracy theorist", and "tinfoil brigade" spewing out of your "applepie hole".

You're quite wrong to believe I'll have to stoop to nametags to deal with posturings such as yours m'boy.

quote:
i can't tell what ms. ducros is doing now.

Rest assured she's well taken care of.

quote:
from what i understand of her position as director of communications for the pmo, she wasn't ignorant of how the media worked - she just had disdain for them. she didn't like their game, and didn't "communicate" with them to their favour. so the media retaliated when they heard her mutter the moron word.

That's an interesting conpiracy theory
It was the confluence of 'Bush' and 'moron' which drew the media's attention, to the alternate delight or disdain of Canadians.

I rather think that after the story broke it was more likely President Bush's aides and appointees that were reluctant to deal with Canada's 'Director of Communications', rather than a press gangpile you allude to.
Francoise herself knew the jig was up quite quickly, but her boss initially refused her resignation, such was his belief in his own perspective on the matter.

quote:
she didn't "communicate" the word - she muttered it under her breath. maybe it's revenge that is sweet in your world. in mine - it's speaking one's mind that is sweet.

Revenge is a dish best served cold, as you will learn in time.
One can speak one's mind in lesser circumstances than Ducroix's - here for example - but in the august position held by close confidents of the PM, it reflects a disdain held by her colleagues as well.

quote:
she [Parrish] called the american farce a coalition of the idiots as opposed to the coaltion of the willingly coerced. thanks for reminding me. may i remind you that turkey turned down $12billion in exchange for their territory being used as a launching pad?

Perhaps you should visit Carolyn Parrish's website to comprehend the whys and wherefores of the 'coalition of idiots' remark you find so titillating.
Greenland is the curious beneficiary of that mindset, and Denmark the dark horse who crossed the finish line first.

quote:
may i remind you that turkey turned down $12billion in exchange for their territory being used as a launching pad?

You may do as you please - you will anyway.
In turn I'll point out that Turkey's stance, alongside that of Saudi Arabia, was the primary reason Iraq wasn't occupied immediately following the Gulf War.
The more things change...

quote:
i have the liberty to use them [quotation marks] at my discretion, and the right to paraphrase.

You'll find that small courtesies go much further in communicating your thoughts to others than your view on communicating thoughts for others.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 29 July 2005 10:27 PM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:

You'll find that small courtesies go much further in communicating your thoughts to others than your view on communicating thoughts for others.

well said, but that's about it for your post.

quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
You're quite wrong to believe I'll have to stoop to nametags to deal with posturings such as yours m'boy.
somebody here's posturing, m'boy. wot?

quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
I rather think that after the story broke it was more likely President Bush's aides and appointees that were reluctant to deal with Canada's 'Director of Communications', rather than a press gangpile you allude to.

you can rather think what you rather want, rather than suggest that my take is rather incorrect, and yours is rather right. rather, i rather think you're rather wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
Revenge is a dish best served cold, as you will learn in time.

wot? a threat?

quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
Perhaps you should visit Carolyn Parrish's website to comprehend the whys and wherefores of the 'coalition of idiots' remark you find so titillating.

now your putting thoughts in my head, you karnac you. how do you know i was so titillated by parrish's comments?

you bore me. but i thought i'd return the time you spent composing your remarkable post. gotta go, m'boy laddie daddy-o.


From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 30 July 2005 12:39 AM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by obscurantist:
In an age when almost everyone in Britain was terrified of another war, Churchill was seen as a warmonger, with some justification.

Churchill was seen as a warmonger more in Nazi Germany than in Britain at the time. Had 'Uncle' Baldwin adopted a similar stance as Churchill during the 30's, Hitler 'might have been' stopped in his tracks early on.

quote:
He relished the prospect of another war with Germany, partly because it offered a chance to redeem himself after the disastrous Dardanelles campaign that he headed in World War I.

That is pure poppycock. Churchill's actions as First Lord of the Admiralty - and architect of the brilliantly conceived and horribly enacted Dardanelles campaign - were entirely vindicated by the Royal Commission which looked into all elements of the fiasco.
The legend you perpetuate evolved due several factors:
* Kitchener's death by drowning in the week immiediately prior to release of findings
* The (understandable) need to scapegoat a figurehead to placate Britains and allies for the slaughter of thousands by a then-perceived third rate power.
* The need to maintain a unified political front against the Boshe during wartime

quote:
By contrast, Parrish is an opponent of military adventurism. You could say she's more like Chamberlain and others who sought to use reason and negotiation in fighting the Nazis.

Parrish was the first female chair of NATO councils, hardly what I would take as evidence of opposition to military adventurism.
What she shares most with Chamberlain is a similar lack of deep understanding of political machinations which drive forces outside their own countries.
While I agree with President Bush that Israeli settlements in the Gaza strip must be abandoned, there is much more involved than that particular scenario.

quote:
They [pre-WW2 British pacifists] turned out to be horribly wrong, of course, but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing if I'd been in their position, twenty years after the end of a particularly horrific war, and not knowing the full extent of the even greater horror that lay ahead.

Following his dismissal from cabinet in 1915, Churchill voluntarily fought alongside infantrymen in the trenches of France.
He knew first hand the horrors that attended pitched battle, quite unlike the British High Command who never ventured there, or the politicians who gained their understanding of the war from the same High Command.

Every decision Churchill made during WW1 was predicated upon finding the short sharp means to end that bloodbath as quickly as possible, in stark contrast to the 'wear down the enemy' mindset which prevailed among the General Staff.

quote:
Still, the difference between the 1930s and today is that in virtually all Western countries back then, the peace / appeasement faction dominated, while the war party is much stronger in many Western countries today (admittedly not all of them, and admittedly not Canada, at least not yet, although this may be changing).

The 'pacifism' of the 30's was far more due the
horrendous cost of WW1, both in decimation of an entire generation of young men, and the £5 million per day cost of the war. It was further enhanced by the effects of the Great Depression, and an over-riding desire to divest Britain of the responsibilities which accrued in controlling an Empire.

quote:
Parrish, like Churchill, is an iconoclast.

That is so far mistaken as to be laughable. Churchill was the very antithesis of an iconoclast, whereas Parrish a prime example of one.

quote:
... she might agree with my perspective that the Republicans' policies, like Naziism, represent the greater threat [ than Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism ].

As many times as I see such judgement, I continue to be astonished at such misguided thinking. The overthrow of Riza Pahlevi in 1979 led directly to the breakdown of international protocols, between America and Iran in particular, and led to the destabilization of the entire region.
Millions died there by Muslim hand once America was seen to be a 'paper tiger' worthy only of vitriolic rhetoric by Imans and cruel dictators alike.

quote:
If the US, with or without major allies, continues on its present course globally, if it becomes even more of a fascist state domestically - what should Canadians do then?

Disbanding the CRTC would be a good first step.
Following that, dimunition of the powers of the Federal government here, in favour of greater influence by Provincial governments would go a long way towards reinvigoratiing the Canadian people.
Canadians outside Ontario and Quebec are as far removed from control of the political process as America was prior to revolting against Great Britain.
Nutbars such as Carolyn Parrish, who represent a mere 28000 voters out of 80 odd thousand eligible voters in a riding unlike any west of Ontario, have been given free rein to lay claim to representing the views of all Canada.

quote:
If pressured to follow the US in their so-called war on terror, should we give in to our powerful and potentially threatening southern neighbours?

The only serious 'potential threat' conceivable to a reasonable person in Canada is that of trade restrictions. Where, exactly, does Canada find trading partners to replace the US ?

quote:
Should we try to hold the middle ground even if it shrinks to almost nothing?

There is no middle ground, nor has there been since Dec 7 1941.
When the USSR bit the green weenie, any pretense that a country could vacillate by towing a line between two political ideologies ended.
A new era has begun, and until China's means and methods of dealing with Muslim insurrection there are better understood, the free world is on it's own against a time-warped enemy whose aim is to disrupt the free movement of people and goods, and destroy the freedoms hard-won by democratic peoples.

quote:
Should we take a vocal stand against American policies, and give sanctuary to American dissidents?

Absolutely no in either case. Canadians do not have the freedom of speech which accrues to American citizenship, and the disastrous effect of absorbing 40,000 draft dodgers during the Vietnam era has directly evolved into the anti-American rhetoric which infests Canada today.

quote:
Standing up to the US militarily may be impractical, but should we be willing to consider doing that anyway?

With what...kitchen knives and golf clubs...the same way we repel thieves and muggers?

quote:
These are awkward questions. The answers aren't easy. Taking a principled approach to them is risky, but so is taking a pragmatic approach.

What so awkward ? It's clear by now that Canada's governance is unprincipled, and Canadians have no real means to do anything about it as long as people like Parrish can magnify the effect of 28000 electors a thousandfold.

quote:
That's not all that different from the situation in the 1930s, where placating and confronting Hitler were strategies that both contained significant risks.

I'll stand by the same solution as my forebears, and link arms with America and Britain against whatever forces seek to bring them down.
Their mores are something I can live with, whereas Islamic fundamentalism, like National Socialism and Communism, I could not.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 30 July 2005 04:13 AM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Parrish was the first female chair of NATO councils, hardly what I would take as evidence of opposition to military adventurism.

Didn't know that about Parrish. She has more of a background in military matters than I'd realized, then.

There's a difference between opposition to military action / alliances in general and opposition to military adventurism, and I take it that Parrish supports the general need for alliances such as NATO and military action in some circumstances (such as Kosovo?), while opposing what she sees as ill-thought-out campaigns like the one in Iraq.

quote:
Following his dismissal from cabinet in 1915, Churchill voluntarily fought alongside infantrymen in the trenches of France.
He knew first hand the horrors that attended pitched battle, quite unlike the British High Command who never ventured there, or the politicians who gained their understanding of the war from the same High Command.

Also quite unlike George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, who studiously avoided service in Vietnam. It tends to be the politicians who never see combat themselves who are most eager to go to war. But my point wasn't so much that Churchill WAS a warmonger, rather that people saw him that way. Just as I don't think Parrish is a "useful idiot" or passive supporter of Islamic fundamentalism, rather that you and many others see her that way.

quote:
Churchill's actions as First Lord of the Admiralty - and architect of the brilliantly conceived and horribly enacted Dardanelles campaign - were entirely vindicated by the Royal Commission which looked into all elements of the fiasco.
The legend you perpetuate evolved due several factors:
* Kitchener's death by drowning in the week immiediately prior to release of findings
* The (understandable) need to scapegoat a figurehead to placate Britains and allies for the slaughter of thousands by a then-perceived third rate power.

I defer to your more detailed knowledge of this historical episode, but from your summary I still get the impression that Churchill shouldered the public blame for the failure of the Dardanelles campaign. Even if he personally felt himself to be vindicated by the Royal Commission, Churchill still saw a need to be redeemed in the public's eyes. (This point isn't a central part of my argument.)

quote:
Churchill was the very antithesis of an iconoclast, whereas Parrish a prime example of one.

By "iconoclast" I meant someone who speaks out against what he or she sees as misguided policies. The policies Churchill spoke out against were his own government's; Parrish spoke out against a foreign government's. If one of them was a greater iconoclast, it was Churchill, but Parrish is one in her own way, as she expresses bluntly what many Canadians think about American foreign policy but don't want to say in quite such stark terms.

quote:
As many times as I see such judgement, I continue to be astonished at such misguided thinking. The overthrow of Riza Pahlevi in 1979 led directly to the breakdown of international protocols, between America and Iran in particular, and led to the destabilization of the entire region.
Millions died there by Muslim hand once America was seen to be a 'paper tiger' worthy only of vitriolic rhetoric by Imans and cruel dictators alike.

Some historical perspective is useful here. The US deposed an elected Iranian leader, Mossadegh, in the 1950s, replacing him with the heir to the Iranian monarchy, Shah Reza Pahlavi. As is still the case in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the US continued to support an unelected and unpopular regime for decades, helping the regime to crush the liberal-democratic opposition until the only remaining opposition were Islamic fundamentalists.

In Iran, the fundamentalists eventually succeeded in toppling the regime. In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the internal conflict continues, while the fundamentalists have also taken the conflict to places such as New York City and Washington, D.C..

You were replying to my point that American imperialism and militarism are a greater threat than Islamic fundamentalism. The example of Iran shows how the American maintenance of authoritarian client regimes in the Middle East contributes to Islamic fundamentalism.

quote:
Disbanding the CRTC would be a good first step.
Following that, dimunition of the powers of the Federal government here, in favour of greater influence by Provincial governments would go a long way towards reinvigoratiing the Canadian people.

How exactly would weakening the national government and abolishing the federal broadcast regulator help Canada respond to a United States that became even more internationally aggressive and / or more internally repressive than at present?

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 30 July 2005 06:32 AM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by obscurantist:
Didn't know that about Parrish. She has more of a background in military matters than I'd realized, then. Maybe she's more like Churchill than I thought.

Read William Manchester's 'The Last Lion' - an excellent and well balanced biography of Churchill - to disabuse yourself of such thoughts.

quote:

Also quite unlike George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, who studiously avoided service in Vietnam. It tends to be the politicians who never see combat themselves who are most eager to go to war.

That flies in the face of comparisons between Hitler and Presiden Bush, does it not ?
Adolf also served in the trenches, was injured, and gained an Iron Cross. One would think he'd have avoided war like the plague if things were so simple.

quote:
But my point wasn't so much that Churchill WAS a warmonger, rather that people saw him that way.

The same is true in spades for President Bush, wouldn't you agree ?
Don't you find it remarkable that President Bush leads a country half full of righteous placard packers who'ld give their left nut to take a swing at their Commander in Chief, and yet doesn't devolve into civil war ?

quote:
Just as I don't think Parrish is a "useful idiot" passive supporter of Islamic fundamentalism, rather that you and many others see her that way.

Whoa up there friend. I'll make my own stupid comments if you don't mind.
I believe Carol Parrish is a sociopath. Nothing more and nothing less.
I see eye to eye with her position on Israeli settlements in the Gaza, but that's about it.
Personally, I think she has no place in the governance of this fine country, and that Canada can produce far better candidates for MP than she.

quote:
By "iconoclast" I meant someone who speaks out against what he or she sees as misguided policies.

That's why God made the Loyal Opposition here in Canada. An iconoclast is one who rails against traditional values, often religious in nature.

A better description for Parrish is loudmouth - which in no way pertains to Churchill, an accomplished orator, author and statesman.

quote:
The policies Churchill spoke out against were his own government's; Parrish spoke out against a foreign government's. If one of them was a greater iconoclast, it was Churchill, but Parrish is one in her own way, as she expresses bluntly what many Canadians think about American foreign policy but don't want to say in quite such stark terms.

Churchill's own leader, Baldwin, and his supporters were the iconoclasts, Churchill the defender of 'traditional' British values carried over from the Victorian era. It is a measure of the failure of Canada's school system that so little is understood about the greatest man of the 20th Century, one without whom everything would have turned out quite differently after 1940.

Parrish has yet to voice an original thought, and to attribute insight to words such as 'bastards' and 'idiots' is to find appeal in the lowest common denominator.
I hold Canadians to be better than that.

quote:

Some historical perspective is useful here. The US deposed an elected Iranian leader, Mossadegh, in the 1950s, replacing him with the heir to the Iranian monarchy, Shah Reza Pahlevi.

As with all truncated versions of history popular amongst today's revisionists, that story glosses over all but the CIA involvement in Mossadegh's removal from power, and avoids the simple fact that an 'elected' leader in Iran was not quite the same as, say, Presidents Truman or Eisenhaur, his American contemporaries.

Britain had a far greater impact on Iranian affairs during Mossadegh's rule, including the placing of a very effective embargo on Iranian oil shipments, replacing the $100 million yearly sales of oil to Britain from an industry founded by British investment - and subsequently nationalized by the same Iranian parliament as elected Mossadegh.
Despite being charged and convicted of treason after his overthrow, Mossadegh lived
to die of old age in 1967, albeit under house arrest.
I'll wager my own left nut that had the Shah been returned to Iran he wouldn't have died from cancer.
You should look into modern Iranian history more closely, ideally in accounts penned prior to the 70's when former flower children became the people they once distrusted.

quote:
As is still the case in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the US continued to support an unelected and unpopular regime for decades, helping the regime to crush the liberal-democratic opposition until the only remaining opposition were Islamic fundamentalists.

As popular as such notions have become, the fact remains that the single most telling reason for the Shah's overthrow was the empowerment of women occuring under the Shah's 'White Revolution'. The same sort of Islamic Fundamentalist wingnuts as turned the clock back in Iran were the 'Taliban' in Afghanistan.

One is stunned that the feminist crusade in America entirely ignores the plight of their sisters in the Middle East, especially since affairs there have come under such intense scrutiny since 1980.

quote:
In Iran, the fundamentalists eventually succeeded in toppling the regime. In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the internal conflict continues, while the fundamentalists have also taken the conflict to places such as Manhattan.

Yet still the placard packers rail on against America, attributing all that is evil to their own leadership rather than the perps who preach 7th century mores.

quote:
You were replying to my point that American imperialism and militarism are a greater threat than Islamic fundamentalism. The example of Iran shows how the American maintenance of authoritarian client regimes in the Middle East contributes to Islamic fundamentalism.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree there.
When the Ayatollah Khoumeini issued his worldwide Fatwah against Salmon Rushdie, even the blatant truth that centuries of building up international protocols between nations had been entirely dismissed due Islamic Fundamentalism was ignored in the name of moral relativism.

quote:

How exactly would weakening the national government and abolishing the federal broadcast regulator help Canada respond to a United States that became even more internationally aggressive and / or more internally repressive than at present?

During WW1 and WW2, Quebec was able to forestall the draft until the last year of both wars, basically until America stepped up to bat and landed in Europe - rendering Quebec the last holdouts in an Anglo-American continent at war. (other than a trickle of volunteers and standing regiments such as the Princess Pats) Lack of draft is what kept all Canadian volunteers at the front throughout WW1, and gave General Currie - the finest commander of all the allied forces - cause to alter the abysmal tactics practised by the British High Command.
That empowerment of the individual provinces ended the day Trudeau used the War Measures Act - previously used only to war against Germany - to employ the Canadian Armed Forces against Canada's own citizens.

Since that time the powers of the Provincial governments and their citizens have only diminished here, in sharp contrast to the powers which remain vested in American states, and which keep sweeping powers out of the hands of a very few people in America despite the oft-repeated mantra that the opposite is actually that case.

Thus it is that an issue such as same-sex marriage, which is abhorrent to many in Canada - so much so that in passing bill C-38 the Liberals have broken the spell they held over the Canadian electorate - was held up to referendums in American states, whereas similar democratic measures were evaded in Canada, and the issue effectively decided by citizen representatives from two provinces.

Abolition of the CRTC would remove from the central government the over-riding power to determine the course of Canadian opinion, a much abused process introduced under the quise of protecting Canadian identity - when in actual fact it has overlaid Canada with an identity concocted by bureaucrats, the permanent and significant majority - again - from Ontario and Quebec.

The CRTC is symbolic of the mind-control Canadians have been subject to since Trudeaumania displaced common sense in Canada, leading to the ascension and long term rule of blowhards such as Carolyn Parrish.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 30 July 2005 06:39 AM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
obscurantist:, please accept my apologies, if necessary, for replying to - or ignoring - points from the previous post you may have edited in the meantime.
I have no malicious intent in this very reasonable discussion.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 30 July 2005 03:41 PM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
...I have no malicious intent in this very reasonable discussion.

wot's that, m'boy? is that your cold dish being served? oooooo. (ya' got me).

what happened to your polite rhetoric that your mother would be pleased to hear at the dinner table?

quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
...I'll make my own stupid comments if you don't mind.
I believe Carol Parrish is a sociopath. Nothing more and nothing less.


quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
...A better description for Parrish is loudmouth

quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
...Parrish has yet to voice an original thought

quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
...The CRTC is symbolic of the mind-control Canadians have been subject to since Trudeaumania displaced common sense in Canada, leading to the ascension and long term rule of blowhards such as Carolyn Parrish.

no dessert for you again! and yes - you can, and do, make your own stupid comments for yourself.

ahhh. ice cream. a dish best served cold. yum.
later laddie daddy-o.


From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 30 July 2005 04:22 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unmaladroit:
you can, and do, make your own stupid comments for yourself.

I should fit right in then...

quote:
what happened to your polite rhetoric that your mother would be pleased to hear at the dinner table?

Mom wouldn't invite Carolyn to dinner
- nor you for that matter...

quote:
later laddie daddy-o. [/QUOTE]

sure pal...stay cool


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca