Mulcair expresses misgivings about Keystone XL pipeline during U.S. visit

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The only reason it's done is because it's a political move aimed at ones opponents.

I'd actually say the aim is to circumvent one's opponents. Can't block Keystone at home? Get the US to block it instead.

This isn't posturing for the election at home, it's bypassing getting elected entirely. (Okay, maybe a bit of both, but moreso the latter.)

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'd actually say the aim is to circumvent one's opponents. Can't block Keystone at home? Get the US to block it instead.

This isn't posturing for the election at home, it's bypassing getting elected entirely. (Okay, maybe a bit of both, but moreso the latter.)

Has this EVER worked? Not in any of these examples we've brought up. Harper, nope, Romney, nope. I'd be surprised if Mulcair thought he was going to block it. No, I think it's far more political maneuvering than actual policy plan.

I think you're giving politicians a wee bit too much credit.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If I remember right Harper got seriously raked over the coals rightfully for those instances for it too.

It appears that the forum doesn't go back that far, but I am doubting there ever would have been a thread condemning Harper for his actions.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

It appears that the forum doesn't go back that far, but I am doubting there ever would have been a thread condemning Harper for his actions.

It does, but the records are gone.

I can't remember if it was discussed a lot here, but I'm not sure CC was talking about the board anyway. I think he meant the country in general.

[Devils'Advocate]

My point is that here, on a Calgary based forum, I take threads like this with a giant grain of salt. I know Mulclair will be condemned as a villain by people who will vote for a man who has committed the same act. Partisanship reigns over consistency.

[GP_Matt]

I think it was terrible when Stephen Harper did it and it is terrible now.

I don't think there will be any CPC supporters on here who defend Harper and condem Muclair.

[Devils'Advocate]

I'm just saying that there is a thread vilifying Mulclair whereas I doubt one existed against Harper. There is "I condemn this and will announce it to the world because I hate the NDP" condemnation and then there is "I condemn this, but meh, I'll just stay quite because the Conservatives are who I typically vote for" condemnation. Which I still see as hypocrisy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Harper was wrong, Mulcair is really wrong.

One difference to me though, Harper was arguing policy, dosen't make it right, but Mulcair is messing with pretty big levers of our economy.

Lets be honest, Mulcair is doing this to secure his votes in Quebec and some in Ontario. He knows he's going to get SFA in Alberta and Sask, and a few seats in B.C.

So not only is he messing with economic decisions in the States, but his policy of division which is ######ed could effect the Western and Energy economy.

Harper was wrong, but Mulcair is really really wrong.

[Devils'Advocate]

Participating in the Iraq war wasn't "really, really wrong?"

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Participating in the Iraq war wasn't "really, really wrong?"

I have my opinion on that, Chretien played a great shell game and I give him credit for it.

Even if Chretien wanted to participate in that war (He sent members of our general staff to California to participate in a strategy conference and to see what America needed from us and was told that we didn't have the capability to do anything but supply truck drivers and on ground logistics support) We were seen as useless anyways and the American's were looking more for gesture then actual hard combat capabilities. Chretien avoided being completely embarrassed by hiding behind international law justifications and volunteering Canada for what was seen as a more winnable situation in Afghanistan, even though we were still embarressed when we hit the ground there. The Liberal governments position was not so cut and dried.


(See the books "Who's war is it anyways" and "The war at the top of the world")

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Participating in the Iraq war wasn't "really, really wrong?"

I can still see that one ending up as a long-term win. Toppling Saddam and all that.

[Azure]

More like long-long term if they ever get their crap figured out.

[CaptainCrunch]

If the American's had known what was coming in that war they probably would have planned better for the end game.

As it stands they went into it with the same mentality as they had in any war. If you topple the dictator the citizens would love you and help you with government establishment.

the start game in the war which was the actual engagement phase went as well as any war in Military history if not far better. The Yanks had low casualties, they destroyed the Iraqi army in the field and forced the government to flee.

They had no victory strategy, they didn't understand how vicious the insurgency would be, and they didn't think that the various terror groups in the middle east would throw their weight into a asymmetrical war. They had no idea of what would happen, they expected flowers and bread and instead got every Al queda group throwing into what was their war against the West.

Tanks and infantry charges and artillery strikes which was what the American's were designed for didn't work in the environment of the hidden enemy and the $10.00 home made bomb and sniper nests in civilian occupied buildings.

[Rerun]

I really love this article.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/nat...721/story.html

Tom Mulcair got himself elected leader of the federal New Democratic Party on a promise he would bring hard-headed realism and a centrist political ethic to the job. He was to be, it was murmured at the time, the NDP’s Tony Blair.
As it turns out, there’s little indeed of Blair’s famous economic pragmatism in Mulcair. He talks the talk but, when push comes to shove, quacks like a duck. Currently, the NDP leader is tromping with big, gnarled feet all over the delicate buds of the Keystone XL pipeline. Criticism of his criticisms, while on a recent Washington D.C. trip, he dismisses as Conservative hypocrisy. All opposition leaders attack the governing party’s positions when travelling overseas!
Except, that Keystone and the issues tied to it are not just political baubles to be toyed with. These are fundamental, shared economic problems – the greatest Canadians now face. The Obama administration’s pending approval or rejection will affect us all from coast to coast to coast, for many years to come. And much of Mulcair’s rhetoric about Keystone is either poorly researched, half-true or spun-up by ideological assumptions that do not hold up for a second in the cold light of day.

[Azure]

A NDP leader that doesn't have any brains when it comes to economic policy? I'm shocked.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I'm just saying that there is a thread vilifying Mulclair whereas I doubt one existed against Harper. There is "I condemn this and will announce it to the world because I hate the NDP" condemnation and then there is "I condemn this, but meh, I'll just stay quite because the Conservatives are who I typically vote for" condemnation. Which I still see as hypocrisy.

I can't say for sure, but I created this thread because I hate what he did and not who did it.

I wasn't a member of CP when Harper was in the majority position so I can't say either way what I would have done. I was a lot more partisan then so I may have overlooked it. I was also not in the country at time and didn't really learn about it until after the fact so I don't know for sure how I would have responded.

[FlamingLonghorn]

This can't be good press for the Keystone:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0CN00D20130331

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by FlamingLonghorn

This can't be good press for the Keystone:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0CN00D20130331

It must have pumped for hours to leak that volume.

[Hemi-Cuda]

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by fotze

Even though I work for oil companies, they kinda deserve some of the crap they get. Exxon is the company on earth with the most resources and the most stringent processes and them this happens. Pipelining is not like drilling in the gulf, you can touch and see everything and there is little to no unknowns involved.

Your totally right, most if not all the time human error is to blame for the severity of the spills. Everything from some guy with a backhoe not paying attention, to guys in the control room not understanding how to react to the alarm condition.

I make no excuses for the pipeline companies, and your right they do deserve some flack because honestly I seen some of the arrogance and stupidity first hand in one of the companies currently trying to build a line. Read some of the PHIMSA reports, really scary how unprepared some of these guys are.

However, with all that said, I am a big supporter of the two pipelines in contention right now. With all that said, pipeline is proven to be the safest way to transport oil. I have also seen first hand how the company I worked with realized they have to improve, and are taking real steps towards making things better. At least the ears are open here in North America unlike some of the dictatorships where most of the other oil comes from.

My point has always been that oil will get shipped one way or another. Block a pipeline and the producers will send it by rail (which there was a derailment spill last week). At least with a pipe you can shut it off if people are executing properly with minimal damage. A train goes off the rail and there is nothing you can do.

So to the environmentalists I say be pragmatic. Tell them they can have the line as long as it has world class safety systems which includes materials, construction, and operational integrity processes. You may not want it, but let them build it. The alternative is oil by train, and then by barge down the Mississippi with little to no control over spill when it happens.