2017 Canadian Politics Megathread - Sesquicentennial Edition

[Napkiraly]

No, they are not. I view the USA as a sibling nation, but that doesn't mean all of their "friends" (if you even want to call the Saudis that) are our friends.

Maybe, maybe not. But it in a round about way helps the US, and that helps us.

Not always. And especially not with the likes of Saudi Arabia. We weren't pals with the Khmer Rouge for example and there are reasons for that. We have been pals with Cuba and until recently, there were reasons why America wasn't. America doesn't even support our claim to the Northwest Passage, which is something Russia will most likely try and assert its claims over in the coming years.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Numbers always matter.

Tautology. Why does the number matter?

url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Saudi_Arabia]Proof #1[/url] Proof number two: Human behavior.
"Oh your not selling us this stuff anymore? Well, price of oil just jumped."

That's not proof that reneging on this specific arms deal will cause them to jack up oil prices, or that they have the capability to do so.

Why bother changing it. Our arms industry needs the cash.

I'm sure they can find other customers.

1.We are not allies with Saudi Arabia, we are allies by proxy.

Even more of a reason to cut them off.

2. Proof of them funding stuff that undermines us?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opini ... de-it.html

Again, the act of selling stuff is not immoral.

Gun dealers sell guns and that's not immoral.

Selling weapons to someone you know is going to do something immoral or illegal is, however. Gun dealers who sold weapons they know were likely going to be used in crimes have been prosecuted as accessories. Same process for arms deals.

Case law.

They can, and would most likely make it happen if we said no.

Why look for some other costumers when you have one right here?

Read the rest of my post.

>TheOpinionPages
Just an opinion.

Murder is illegal and sense that's almost the only thing you can do with guns, all gun sellers are guilty of murder.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Maybe, maybe not. But it in a round about way helps the US, and that helps us.

Not always. And especially not with the likes of Saudi Arabia. We weren't pals with the Khmer Rouge for example and there are reasons for that. We have been pals with Cuba and until recently, there were reasons why America wasn't. America doesn't even support our claim to the Northwest Passage, which is something Russia will most likely try and assert its claims over in the coming years.

As soon as Russia try's to claim it, they will support it.

Not always but most of the time.

[Napkiraly]

Not always. And especially not with the likes of Saudi Arabia. We weren't pals with the Khmer Rouge for example and there are reasons for that. We have been pals with Cuba and until recently, there were reasons why America wasn't. America doesn't even support our claim to the Northwest Passage, which is something Russia will most likely try and assert its claims over in the coming years.

As soon as Russia try's to claim it, they will support it.

Not always but most of the time.

Sorry, I'm mistaken they claim parts of the Arctic we claim.

And Saudi Arabia is not one of those times. They are not a friend, never have been, and never should be.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Case law.

Going back to the Romans?

They can, and would most likely make it happen if we said no.

Again why? Where's your evidence?

Why look for some other costumers when you have one right here?

Because this one is about to go and do something illegal and immoral?

>TheOpinionPages
Just an opinion.

By a French reporter specializing in the Middle East and Africa. But alright, here's another;

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world ... islam.html

Murder is illegal and sense that's almost the only thing you can do with guns, all gun sellers are guilty of murder.

Knowingly selling a gun to a person who wants to commit a murder is accessory, not murder.

[MERIZoC]

The idea that the Liberals need to go through with the arms deal for some bullshit "credibility" is a cop-out. It doesnt matter who authored it before, it matters who is going through with it now. People are dying. Being killed by an oppressive regime that seeks to dominate the region. Why the fuck should we help them?

No, it's facing facts. Burning down everything the previous government had ongoing does not make Canada a reliable partner. If people think Canada is unreliable then our clout and standing in the international community diminishes a great deal, particularly when it comes to any sort of deal or agreement with another actor. That's not something our country can afford.

I couldn't give a rats arse about reliability if we're propping up dictatorial theocracies.

[MERIZoC]

The idea that the Liberals need to go through with the arms deal for some bullshit "credibility" is a cop-out. It doesnt matter who authored it before, it matters who is going through with it now. People are dying. Being killed by an oppressive regime that seeks to dominate the region. Why the fuck should we help them?

There still an US ally and therefore our ally.

It is not a cop out.

If a solder was ordered to kill civilian, you don't blame the solder, you blame whomever ordered it.

lol
I would rather we not be puppets of a country with a horribly destructive and self serving foreign policy, thanks very much. No idea why you think we should be. We're perfectly capable of independent action.

Yeah, I would blame the soldier, and whoever ordered it. Thats not even really applicable to this situation, but whatever.

[Marcurix]

No, it's facing facts. Burning down everything the previous government had ongoing does not make Canada a reliable partner. If people think Canada is unreliable then our clout and standing in the international community diminishes a great deal, particularly when it comes to any sort of deal or agreement with another actor. That's not something our country can afford.

I couldn't give a rats arse about reliability if we're propping up dictatorial theocracies.

You might not, but the government has to. It's about picking and choosing battles and consistent backtracking on deals or commitments is costly.

And it's the devil you know in this case.

[MERIZoC]

I couldn't give a rats arse about reliability if we're propping up dictatorial theocracies.

You might not, but the government has to. It's about picking and choosing battles and consistent backtracking on deals or commitments is costly.

And it's the devil you know in this case.

Who said anything about consistent backtracking? A devil is a devil, fuck them all. Hell, this isn't even a lesser of two evils situation.

[Marcurix]

You might not, but the government has to. It's about picking and choosing battles and consistent backtracking on deals or commitments is costly.

And it's the devil you know in this case.

Who said anything about consistent backtracking? A devil is a devil, fuck them all. Hell, this isn't even a lesser of two evils situation.

Because if you backtrack on Saudi Arabia for whatever reason of your choosing people are inevitably going to expect you do the same thing with any nation that has anything similar going on, or something they consider on that level. Taking a moral stance in the weapons trade is always problematic.

And for sake of "a devil is a devil" don't forget Canada isn't without sin.

[MERIZoC]

Who said anything about consistent backtracking? A devil is a devil, fuck them all. Hell, this isn't even a lesser of two evils situation.

Because if you backtrack on Saudi Arabia for whatever reason of your choosing people are inevitably going to expect you do the same thing with any nation that has anything similar going on, or something they consider on that level. Taking a moral stance in the weapons trade is always problematic.

And for sake of "a devil is a devil" don't forget Canada isn't without sin.

The weapons trade is problematic. I have no qualms about any arms industry being disrupted.

[Geilinor]

Because if you backtrack on Saudi Arabia for whatever reason of your choosing people are inevitably going to expect you do the same thing with any nation that has anything similar going on, or something they consider on that level. Taking a moral stance in the weapons trade is always problematic.

And for sake of "a devil is a devil" don't forget Canada isn't without sin.

The weapons trade is problematic. I have no qualms about any arms industry being disrupted.

You might not have any qualms but the government has to balance the interests of people who work in the arms industry with moral priorities.

[Marcurix]

Because if you backtrack on Saudi Arabia for whatever reason of your choosing people are inevitably going to expect you do the same thing with any nation that has anything similar going on, or something they consider on that level. Taking a moral stance in the weapons trade is always problematic.

And for sake of "a devil is a devil" don't forget Canada isn't without sin.

The weapons trade is problematic. I have no qualms about any arms industry being disrupted.

Well, again, you might not but the government will.

Mostly because it undermines that "perfectly capable of independent action" narrative you're confident of.

If Canada doesn't sell it, someone else will. If the Canadian defence industry suffers, Canadian reliance on other nations for its arms grows. In the end, you're out of pocket, a little less capable and nothing has changed.

Not really a victory.

[MERIZoC]

The weapons trade is problematic. I have no qualms about any arms industry being disrupted.

You might not have any qualms but the government has to balance the interests of people who work in the arms industry with moral priorities.

Why?

[Geilinor]

You might not have any qualms but the government has to balance the interests of people who work in the arms industry with moral priorities.

Why?

Is that a question? Because people would lose their jobs. It's a more complicated decision than you're painting it as to cancel an arms deal.

[MERIZoC]

The weapons trade is problematic. I have no qualms about any arms industry being disrupted.

Well, again, you might not but the government will.

Mostly because it undermines that "perfectly capable of independent action" narrative you're confident of.

If Canada doesn't sell it, someone else will. If the Canadian defence industry suffers, Canadian reliance on other nations for its arms grows. In the end, you're out of pocket, a little less capable and nothing has changed.

Not really a victory.

I'm my own person. Not the government. Congrats on making the distinction.

I don't really care who Canada buys its weapons from, I'd love it if they bought less in general. We need less war not more. But buying arms from foreign contractors compared to domestic ones doesn't really make a "pocketbook" difference, you're still paying.

[MERIZoC]

Why?

Is that a question? Because people would lose their jobs. It's a more complicated decision than you're painting it as to cancel an arms deal.

People can find jobs elsewhere. Economies are flexible. They change over time. Avoiding the possibility of losing a few jobs is not worth sending weapons to religious nutjobs.

Tell me, if Stephen Harper had made an arms deal with ISIS how would you feel?

[Geilinor]

Is that a question? Because people would lose their jobs. It's a more complicated decision than you're painting it as to cancel an arms deal.

People can find jobs elsewhere. Economies are flexible. They change over time. Avoiding the possibility of losing a few jobs is not worth sending weapons to religious nutjobs.

Tell me, if Stephen Harper had made an arms deal with ISIS how would you feel?

I don't think the deal with Saudi Arabia was a good idea but demanding that Trudeau cancel it doesn't make sense either.

[Camicon]

No, it's facing facts. Burning down everything the previous government had ongoing does not make Canada a reliable partner. If people think Canada is unreliable then our clout and standing in the international community diminishes a great deal, particularly when it comes to any sort of deal or agreement with another actor. That's not something our country can afford.

I couldn't give a rats arse about reliability if we're propping up dictatorial theocracies.

Of course you don't give a shit, the buck doesn't stop with you.

[Marcurix]

Well, again, you might not but the government will.

Mostly because it undermines that "perfectly capable of independent action" narrative you're confident of.

If Canada doesn't sell it, someone else will. If the Canadian defence industry suffers, Canadian reliance on other nations for its arms grows. In the end, you're out of pocket, a little less capable and nothing has changed.

Not really a victory.

I'm my own person. Not the government. Congrats on making the distinction.

I made it several comments back, so the snark is kind of lost. Still, you can't really complain about who Canada sells to without measuring it against the concerns of government.

I don't really care who Canada buys its weapons from,

Yes you do, particularly if that country has a bad record in certain areas.

I'd love it if they bought less in general.

The people involved would disagree, from my understanding.

But buying arms from foreign contractors compared to domestic ones doesn't really make a "pocketbook" difference, you're still paying.

Into a domestic economy where taxes bring some of that money back and the rest spurs economic activity.

As opposed to sending that money overseas to another country.

Again, there is the matter of that independence you mentioned but you don't seem overly concerned with that.

[Wolfmanne2]

Is that a question? Because people would lose their jobs. It's a more complicated decision than you're painting it as to cancel an arms deal.

People can find jobs elsewhere. Economies are flexible. They change over time. Avoiding the possibility of losing a few jobs is not worth sending weapons to religious nutjobs.

Tell me, if Stephen Harper had made an arms deal with ISIS how would you feel?

I don't exactly agree with the arms deal but the two aren't remotely comparable. And opposing this because 'weapons are bad man' isn't a good reason.

[MERIZoC]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-conservative-leadership-race-1.3782244

Ten MPs lined up behind him as he appeared in the National Press Theatre to launch his bid, a subset of the 20 MPs and senators he says are endorsing him.

Of those, only one senator is not from Western Canada, but Scheer says his campaign enjoys support from across the country.

lol

Now, despite failing to get the support of members from most of the significant parts of the country, Scheer is crushing the 5 other registered candidates in terms of endorsements.

The NDP, of course, has made no progress on their own election. >_>

[Napkiraly]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-conservative-leadership-race-1.3782244

Ten MPs lined up behind him as he appeared in the National Press Theatre to launch his bid, a subset of the 20 MPs and senators he says are endorsing him.

Of those, only one senator is not from Western Canada, but Scheer says his campaign enjoys support from across the country.

lol

Now, despite failing to get the support of members from most of the significant parts of the country, Scheer is crushing the 5 other registered candidates in terms of endorsements.

The NDP, of course, has made no progress on their own election. >_>

Michael Chong is still my guy. Though he'll probably lose. Regardless of whomever is the leader in 2020 will probably lose.

[Camicon]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-conservative-leadership-race-1.3782244

lol

Now, despite failing to get the support of members from most of the significant parts of the country, Scheer is crushing the 5 other registered candidates in terms of endorsements.

The NDP, of course, has made no progress on their own election. >_>

Michael Chong is still my guy. Though he'll probably lose. Regardless of whomever is the leader in 2020 will probably lose.

If the Liberal fuck up, and the Tories put in a good showing, the left-wing vote could be split like it was when Harper was in office.

[Napkiraly]

Michael Chong is still my guy. Though he'll probably lose. Regardless of whomever is the leader in 2020 will probably lose.

If the Liberal fuck up, and the Tories put in a good showing, the left-wing vote could be split like it was when Harper was in office.

True, but I doubt it. We shall most likely have to wait until the second mandate for the fuck ups to take their toll. Though it also depends on whomever would be the leader in 2025.