| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:15 am Post subject: Most Canadians want Canada to remain neutral in crisis |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has publicly supported Israel throughout the recent conflict in the Middle East. But a new poll finds that his position makes some Canadians, who would prefer Ottawa take a more neutral stance, uncomfortable.
In the survey conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail, 45 per cent said they disagreed with Harper's open support for Israel. Thirty-two per cent agreed with the prime minister, while six per cent didn't know or wouldn't answer the question.
"What you're struck by is how unpopular the position he has taken is," Strategic Counsel Chairman Allen Gregg told The Globe, "especially in the province of Quebec" where 61 per cent of voters are against Harper's support for Israel's actions.
When asked who Canada should support, a majority, 77 per cent, said Canada should be neutral. Sixteen per cent said Canada should support Israel, while only one per cent said Hezbollah. Six per cent didn't know or declined to answer.
|
| Quote: |
OTTAWA -- A new poll suggests Tory support is sliding over voter concern that Canada has become too cozy with the United States on Middle East policy.
The latest results by Decima Research, released to The Canadian Press, put the Conservatives and Liberals in a virtual tie nationally.
The Tories had 32 per cent support compared with 31 per cent for the Liberals and 16 per cent for the New Democrats.
But the Liberals widened their Ontario lead to 42 per cent of voter support compared with 33 per cent for the Conservatives, and have pulled in front of the Tories in Quebec for the first time since last winter�s campaign.
The two parties had been neck-and-neck in Ontario as recently as mid-June.
�When we look at the combination of the alignment of the government with the current U.S. administration policy on the Middle East � and in particular with respect to the Lebanon-Israel conflict � it�s reasonable to assume it�s one of the factors that�s driving Conservative support down in the near term,� said Decima CEO Bruce Anderson.
�They clearly are encountering some pushback from voters in Ontario and Quebec in particular.�
Liberals have also taken the lead in crucial urban ridings by a margin of 35 per cent versus 29 per cent, and are increasingly preferred by women and by voters aged 25 to 34, the poll suggests.
Middle East policy and hefty new defence spending announced by the Tories in June have apparently left some Quebec voters cold, Anderson says.
The province tends to be the most pacifist in Canada. It�s also where Harper has invested most of his political capital in a drive for a majority government.
Harper has been vilified by critics for his pro-Israel stance on the latest crisis in Lebanon. But Anderson notes that the Conservative slide started in June before fighting between Israel and Hezbollah began killing hundreds of civilians, many of them Lebanese children.
Anderson cautioned against reading too much into the latest telephone poll of 1,000 Canadians, taken July 27 to 31.
�I wouldn�t say the Conservatives have fallen into some sort of abyss.
�We�re talking about shifts that are significant in terms of whether they portend a Conservative minority or majority � or even the outcome of an election.
�But people know the election isn�t going to be held right now.�
Indeed, the popularity plunge is expected to be a hot topic as the Conservative caucus gathers this week for a retreat in Cornwall, Ont.
Talk of the Conservatives engineering their own defeat for a snap election this fall has dissipated as polls continue to suggest momentum is not with the minority government.
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JAWINSEOUL
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When 1 civilized country (Israel) is at war with a Militia of Thugs who is operating under the control of no recognized nation, Canada should get off its candy ass and take a side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is this anything new? Canadians sat around the last half of the Cold War waiting for their appointment with their socialized doctor while the US footed the bill for their defense while criticizing us for coming into the world wars late.
Neutrality or fence-sitting: It all depends on whose ox is being gored. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| At the risk of sounding like IGTG, does anyone actually think America wanted a fully armed Canada on their completely undefended, very large border? The answer is no, and they still don't want one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| does anyone actually think America wanted a fully armed Canada on their completely undefended, very large border? |
Did Butch ever worry about a fully-armed Sundance? Did Wyatt ever worry about Morgan and Doc? There is a lot to be said for a trusted friend shouldering their fair share of the burden. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| At the risk of sounding like IGTG, does anyone actually think America wanted a fully armed Canada on their completely undefended, very large border? The answer is no, and they still don't want one. |
curling brooms and hockey sticks are truly lethal, after a few pitchers. You make a very good point.
and put a curling stone in the hand of a canadian lumberjack and you have something that could truly inspire generations of Palestinian stonethrowers.
thank god america's centuries-long nefarious plan to lull canada into a false sense of security has worked. we are now free to move around the continent........(evil laugh sound special effect)....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh well, look at the financial benefits all this ass-kissing will bring, like a lucrative softwood lumber deal or millions of passport-less Yanks heading north for holidays over decades to come...
Oh wait... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| At the risk of sounding like IGTG, does anyone actually think America wanted a fully armed Canada on their completely undefended, very large border? The answer is no, and they still don't want one. |
"Fully-armed" or not, Canada simply does not have the political economy or the population numbers to threaten the U.S. in any way.
You could never hope to blockade us, but we could easily blockade you. And we could probably take you with NYPD and not even need to bring in the National Guard.
In any case, "Canadians want Canada to remain neutral in conflicts"? That is up to Canada, but, it would be nice to be such a small country with neutrality as a real option. As you know, the U.S. is unfortunately too big to be neutral in anything, anywhere. By our action or inaction, we approve, support, or unintentionally encourage others to act or not act around the globe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Is this anything new? Canadians sat around the last half of the Cold War waiting for their appointment with their socialized doctor while the US footed the bill for their defense while criticizing us for coming into the world wars late.
Neutrality or fence-sitting: It all depends on whose ox is being gored. |
Are you not familiar with NORAD?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| At the risk of sounding like IGTG, does anyone actually think America wanted a fully armed Canada on their completely undefended, very large border? The answer is no, and they still don't want one. |
"Fully-armed" or not, Canada simply does not have the political economy or the population numbers to threaten the U.S. in any way.
You could never hope to blockade us, but we could easily blockade you. And we could probably take you with NYPD and not even need to bring in the National Guard.
In any case, "Canadians want Canada to remain neutral in conflicts"? That is up to Canada, but, it would be nice to be such a small country with neutrality as a real option. As you know, the U.S. is unfortunately too big to be neutral in anything, anywhere. By our action or inaction, we approve, support, or unintentionally encourage others to act or not act around the globe. |
That wasn't my point, but leave it to you to think in invasion terms. America would not want a completely independent Canada, whatever the people on this thread might think.
Why doesn't America want a fully armed Canada, cause even if we were the absolute best of friends, there would still be a need to have a bigger defence at the border. This equals $$$ for a reason that is not needed, but would be required. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| America would not want a completely independent Canada, whatever the people on this thread might think. |
Huh? Now we are tyrannizing Canada, too?
Last time I checked, Canada was indeed "a completely independent" nation-state already -- at least since England granted independence in eighteen-whenever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| America would not want a completely independent Canada, whatever the people on this thread might think. |
Huh? Now we are tyrannizing Canada, too?
Last time I checked, Canada was indeed "a completely independent" nation-state already -- at least since England granted independence in eighteen-whenever. |
As YOU YOURSELF have pointed out (as others), Canada could not be what it is without America. We are dependent on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are confusing the issue. And what you say is simply silly.
A parasitical-symbiotic relationship is not the same thing as a dependency.
Canada follows its own (usually markedly leftist and, at times inexplicably, defiant) counsel in its domestic and foreign affairs. There is no U.S. "proconsul" or troops based or operating there, etc., and Canada is not dependent on U.S. loans, either.
That is because it is a fully independent country, as it has been since "winning" its independence in the ninteenth century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
You are confusing the issue. And what you say is simply silly.
A parasitical-symbiotic relationship is not the same thing as a dependency.
Canada follows its own (usually markedly leftist and, at times inexplicably, defiant) counsel in its domestic and foreign affairs. There is no U.S. "proconsul" or troops based or operating there, etc., and Canada is not dependent on U.S. loans, either.
That is because it is a fully independent country, as it has been since "winning" its independence in the ninteenth century. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alias's avatar has made it impossible for me to concentrate on this thread. I've been staring at it for over ten minutes.
What were we talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
