Paul Calandra and The Great Canadian Facepalm

First, let's get everybody up to speed. I am Canadian, and as such, Canadian politics are of some interest to me. However, I don't expect everybody to know the details of our political system and so here's a crash course. I've bolded the really important bits.

While the US has a 2 party system, Canada has a fair few more parties. 3 of the major ones are the Conservatives (also known as Tories), who are on the right of the political spectrum. Then there's the Liberals, in the middle, and the New Democratic Party (the NDP) on the left. As it stands, the Conservatives are in power on the federal level, and the NDP hold the second most number of seats, making them the official opposition.

In the House of Commons, which is similar to congress, there was a Question Period taking place. This is meant to be moderated, to some degree, by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Now, the Speaker is chosen in a small election by the members of the House, and they elect one of their own to be the speaker. As the Conservatives hold the power and the most votes, the current sitting speaker is a Conservative MP. MP's are Members of Parliament, essentially somebody elected by the people to represent them in the House of Commons (like a congressman).

Paul Calandra the person of interest here. He's a Conservative MP and was appointed to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. As such, one of his duties is to answer questions to the Prime Minister as a proxy. He does so regularly, both in the house and in the media. He's also known for dodging questions, and poorly at that.



Now, on to the interesting bits. On the 23rd, during a question period, the opposition posed some questions about our involvement in Iraq to the Prime Minister. Watch!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/23/paul-calandra-iraq-mulcair-scheer-neutrality_n_5870714.html

I don't know about you guys, but I share this mans reaction to how Mr. Calandra handles things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofydcQEnDOA


Something somewhat unrelated but still funny, if you'd like to ask Paul Calandra something yourself, feel free to pose it to him here, at http://www.askpaulcalandra.com/ !

And I'm sure that none of us will forget that Mr. Calandra will stand up for Israel who are on the front lines fighting terror every day.

To be frank Canuck politics as well as British seems so messy and disorganized. Seeing politicians lie or evade tough questions is nothing new. Even though it's a fiction -- and a farce -- the ILLUSION of two competing diametrically opposed parties in the U.S. -- and you must support one or the other -- is much closer to Americans' attention span and black-and-white dismissals of all global issues,

Jesus christ on a cracker!
I've seen some dodging but nothing like that! That was out and out ignoring.

It is messy, but I rather like the multi-party system. It seems more realistic. But now, is there any recourse for making that man answer questions? Because here there isn't, not really.
I have a feeling they are hiding some of the truth about what we need to do to keep this shit in Iraq contained. I don't think another war will do it I think we need to discuss the reality of the failure of countries to draw appropriate borders after WWII if we are to avoid WWIII.

NoCoPilot wrote:

To be frank Canuck politics as well as British seems so messy and disorganized.  Seeing politicians lie or evade tough questions is nothing new.  Even though it's a fiction -- and a farce -- the ILLUSION of two competing diametrically opposed parties in the U.S. -- and you must support one or the other -- is much closer to Americans' attention span and black-and-white dismissals of all global issues,

It is messy. There's also a fair bit of fat that could be trimmed. For instance, our Senate is useless. Just old politicians doing nothing and getting paid for it.

But, we also have more parties then the ones listed. There's the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party, which are 2 other major players, as well as a number of small parties and, of course, independents. And the parties here really are different from one another. And I think that's a good thing. Choice creates competition, and competition creates change.

Jenni wrote:

Jesus christ on a cracker!
I've seen some dodging but nothing like that! That was out and out ignoring.

It is messy, but I rather like the multi-party system. It seems more realistic. But now, is there any recourse for making that man answer questions? Because here there isn't, not really.
I have a feeling they are hiding some of the truth about what we need to do to keep this shit in Iraq contained. I don't think another war will do it I think we need to discuss the reality of the failure of countries to draw appropriate borders after WWII if we are to avoid WWIII.

I've never seen dodging like that before. Not even from Calandra. And is there recourse? Not really, that I'm aware of. The recourse was the plea to the Speaker, and you saw how well that went. Beyond that, the media attention this is getting will help. People will see how dishonest the Tories are being, and that will help the other parties.

And I think most Canadians feel that a Canadian presence in Iraq is not a good thing, that it's helping neither the Iraqis, nor Canadians. That Iraq needs to have a proper government installed, and that we (the west) should assist that government how THEY see fit (within reason, of course). Whether that be assistance in creating infrastructure, assistance with food, a raid on the Taliban, or to fuck off forever, this is their country and they need to be the runs running it and calling the shots there. Take a look at this article.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadians-concerned-presence-in-iraq-may-lead-to-prolonged-conflict-nanos-ctv-poll-1.2023438

Article wrote:

Ottawa has contributed 69 special forces commandos to serve in a non-combat, advisory mission in Iraq. The Canadian soldiers will train Iraqi forces fighting the extremist group.

See, that is okay. I think that most Canadians feel that this is an appropriate use of our forces.

Article wrote:

While Stephen Harper previously said the length of the mission would be up for review after 30 days, the Prime Minister revealed Wednesday that the U.S. government has already requested further Canadian involvement in the fight against Islamic extremists in the Middle East. He declined to announce Canada’s next move, saying “additional debate” by the government was needed.

This is a fucking problem. The article goes into detail about it, but the majority of Canadians do not want any kind of prolonged conflict in the Middle East. And the PM dancing around the issue is definitely concerning.

The problem with providing "non-combat advisors" -- as Howard can attest -- is that they have a nasty history of mission creep.

And the problem with arming "moderate rebels" is that today's moderate rebel is tomorrow's Al Qaeda (oh yes, we did)*.

The problem with meddling in millenia-old ethnic divisions that we utterly misunderstand is that none of these participants really wants outsiders marching in under banners to solve their enmities.  The ISIS soldiers of today are mostly the remains of Saddam's Republican Guards, who were summarily dismissed from service (but allowed to keep their weapons!) by the terminally-stupid Donald Rumsfeld.  It was often said of Saddam -- and Mubarak -- and Ghaddafi -- that they may be brutal dictators but at least they kept their countries from degenerating into utter chaos.










* - As I've gotten older, I have come to the conclusion that America's foreign policy -- run exclusively by ex-defense contractors -- is mostly if not exclusively about selling armaments. Often to both sides. We don't care. As long as their credit is good.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The problem with providing "non-combat advisors" -- as Howard can attest -- is that they have a nasty history of mission creep.

And we do understand that, which is why we're concerned about this, and how Harper (our PM) is handling the situation.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The problem with meddling in millenia-old ethnic divisions that we utterly misunderstand is that none of these participants really wants outsiders marching in under banners to solve their enmities. The ISIS soldiers of today are mostly the remains of Saddam's Republican Guards, who were summarily dismissed from service (but allowed to keep their weapons!) by the terminally-stupid Donald Rumsfeld. It was often said of Saddam -- and Mubarak -- and Ghaddafi -- that they may be brutal dictators but at least they kept their countries from degenerating into utter chaos.

And I get that as well. That's why the key bit was that they request assistance. If they don't, then frankly it's none of our business. But if they do, if they want our help, then I don't see why we shouldn't provide them with our help (while avoiding the aforementioned mission creep). They are people too, and I think they deserve to live in relative comfort and safety. But it's their country, and they need to decide how it's going to be run, and when they need help and what they need help with, if anything at all.

hecter wrote:

They are people too, and I think they deserve to live in relative comfort and safety.

Exactly.

Which is why I have long advocated in these global hotspots instead of selling arms or taking sides of one rebel group against the other, our money (and humanity!) would be much better served by offering free emigration (airline ticket + resettlement assistance) to anybody who requests it.

NoCoPilot wrote:

hecter wrote:

They are people too, and I think they deserve to live in relative comfort and safety.

Exactly.

Which is why I have long advocated in these global hotspots instead of selling arms or taking sides of one rebel group against the other, our money (and humanity!) would be much better served by offering free emigration (airline ticket + resettlement assistance) to anybody who requests it.

DEY TUK OUR JERBS!

Also, seriously, just GIVE the terrorists a free pass into OUR country!? I don't think so...

hecter wrote:

It is messy. There's also a fair bit of fat that could be trimmed. For instance, our Senate is useless. Just old politicians doing nothing and getting paid for it.

Wow. Canadian government is getting to be like the US gov.
Sorry about that. Really.

hecter wrote:

just GIVE the terrorists a free pass into OUR country!?

They could be vetted.

And they're not all terrorists.

And if you give them a way out, many of them may decide fighting amongst themselves over a patch of desert is a waste of their life. Everybody wants the same thing, a better life.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Which is why I have long advocated in these global hotspots instead of selling arms or taking sides of one rebel group against the other, our money (and humanity!) would be much better served by offering free emigration (airline ticket + resettlement assistance) to anybody who requests it.

That's a very humanitarian approach, but do you honestly think it would work? You're essentially talking about the removal of all national borders. Regardless of how one feels about that concept, the implementation of it would take many decades and could not be dependent on the emergence of hot spots to drive the change; that would be the most difficult way to do it, I believe.

_Howard wrote:

That's a very humanitarian approach, but do you honestly think it would work? You're essentially talking about the removal of all national borders.

No I'm not. Just advocating for the freedom everyone should have to live in peace and opportunity.

Countries would still exist -- their citizens cannot be held hostage to make a country.

While I am a strong advocate of lenient immigration policies, I don't believe that unregulated immigration - such as you suggest - is desirable or workable.

On the other hand, I may have misinterpreted your post. If you are suggesting only that those inhabitants of "hot spots" be allowed to emigrate on request, then you may be on to something.

Of course, there will be problems. For example, if the Sunnis raise holy hell in a country, then perhaps all the Shiites will exit - just what the Sunnis want. So you have the rest of the world assisting the Sunnis' scheme. (Doesn't have to be Sunnis and Shiites, of course, they are just examples). So, in cases like this, we wind up with "geographic genocide" (if I may use that phrase).

_Howard wrote:

Of course, there will be problems. For example, if the Sunnis raise holy hell in a country, then perhaps all the Shiites will exit - just what the Sunnis want. So, in cases like this, we wind up with "geographic genocide" (if I may use that phrase).

Okay, let's say that happens. The Sunnis -- who make up 89% of Muslims worldwide, but only 35% in Iraq & Bahrain, 15% in Azerbaijan and 5% in Iran -- and are incidentally the basis of ISIS and Saddam's former regime -- seize control of the countries (or more accurately geopolitical regions, since the country borders are mostly the result of ill-informed British meddling after the Second World War) where they're the majority, causing Shia to flee to Iran and Pakistan and Azerbaijan where they're the majority. Voluntary segregation. If borders were fully porous, the populations would separate themselves according to their preferences. "Sectarian violence" is caused, to what degree I don't know but certainly a large one?, by opposing sects having to live together in forced integration, or maybe neighboring villages where rumors can rule local politics, don't you think?

Jews, Christians, atheists, anybody who wants to, should be allowed to try living there -- knowing they're not wanted. If they want out they should be allowed safe passage out. Eventually people will settle where they're comfortable, probably mostly in integrated communities but certain pockets will be exclusively xenophobic.

One just hopes those areas don't control all the oil reserves.

Great. You have just supported the creation of ghettos.

Does forced integration ever work?

But you referred to it as "Voluntary segregation." I think that may be different.