Nice informative post. I'm a bit concerned about Ignatieff because he's selling out some of his previous professed ideas and becoming more and more like a glad handing middle of the road politician every day. If he hadn't publicly expressed such strong views on many topics in the past, I wouldn't have cause for alarm, but he has, which makes we wonder whether how far he'll sell out to get power. One thing's for certain, he'd make an interesting and articulate leader. If forced to make a prediction now, though, I imagine that he'll the most votes on the first ballot at the leadership convention but not a majority. If the occurs, the disparate left-of-centre candidates with minimum support will throw their support behind Stephan Dion for a win.
The Liberal candidates in general should focus more on domestic issues and less on Afghanistan. Domestic issues are the real vote getters and they come off as stupid and hypocritical when they criticize a strategy and a set of mission objectives that THEY CREATED under the Martin government (obiviously Ignatieff wasn't part of that government but many of the other Liberal candidates were). The current mission in Afghanistan has since its inception been a joint security and reconstruction mission. There are several Canadian "Provincial Reconstruction Teams" working to rebuild the country's infrastructure. The only thing the Harper government has done is call a vote to extend a mission that the previous Liberal government created. Nothing that has occured since January in the mission was unforseeable when the mission was originally created.
I'm not a fan of attacking the Afghan mission. Though to be fair the criticism has largely been on things like forcing an early vote and how they handle soldier deaths. Still, I remain 100% behind the mission myself.
Well to be fair he said he was 100% behind Israel, but he wanted a ceasefire now because he was concerned it could escalate into a full blown war with Iran and Syria.
Well, after reading his op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail during the first week of August, I was troubled by a few things. First off, he didn’t lay any moral blame. Indeed, he didn’t criticize Hezbollah for starting the conflict, for using civilians as human shields, or for maintaining the destruction of Israel as their primary objective.
Instead, as you mentioned, he focused on the (non-existent) risk of a nuclear war between Israel and Iran. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Iranian leadership doesn’t understand that a nuclear attack by ANY state in the Middle East against Israel will be the last thing that anybody in the Middle East will ever do. Israel has long maintained enough nuclear weapons to ensure that every single person in the region will die if it gets attacked and Israeli governments have apparently been quite vocal about this fact in their discussions with Arab and Iranian leaders over the years. As a specialist in international relations, Ignatieff should know better than to dig up this non-existent threat as a way to further his broader argument against the Israeli military campaign in Lebanon.
The Liberal candidates in general should focus more on domestic issues and less on Afghanistan. Domestic issues are the real vote getters and they come off as stupid and hypocritical when they criticize a strategy and a set of mission objectives that THEY CREATED under the Martin government (obiviously Ignatieff wasn't part of that government but many of the other Liberal candidates were). The current mission in Afghanistan has since its inception been a joint security and reconstruction mission. There are several Canadian "Provincial Reconstruction Teams" working to rebuild the country's infrastructure. The only thing the Harper government has done is call a vote to extend a mission that the previous Liberal government created. Nothing that has occured since January in the mission was unforseeable when the mission was originally created.
Reply
Curiously what do you think he's backtracking on?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Instead, as you mentioned, he focused on the (non-existent) risk of a nuclear war between Israel and Iran. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Iranian leadership doesn’t understand that a nuclear attack by ANY state in the Middle East against Israel will be the last thing that anybody in the Middle East will ever do. Israel has long maintained enough nuclear weapons to ensure that every single person in the region will die if it gets attacked and Israeli governments have apparently been quite vocal about this fact in their discussions with Arab and Iranian leaders over the years. As a specialist in international relations, Ignatieff should know better than to dig up this non-existent threat as a way to further his broader argument against the Israeli military campaign in Lebanon.
Reply
Leave a comment