CHINA- Who Lost Face?

Just Who Lost Face Mr. Ignatieff?

Yesterday the Chinese Leadership "dressed down" our Prime Minister for not genuflecting before their massive industrial and yes, dictatorial State.

Ignatieff was quick out of the blocks bemoaning the 'fact' that Harper had not only lost face personally; he had also lost face on behalf of all of Canada. The shame.

Give your head a shake Michael - some loss of face. China is a Totalitarian State where it imprisons or kills its political opponents and is not above harvesting their organs.

Those who suck up to China must do so at the expense of down playing their extreme human rights abuses.

And, it is they who have lost faith.

From the start, I have tried to give Ignatieff the benefit of the doubt but have now reached the limit of my patience.

Remember too, Ignatieff's recent assertion that Quebec was not getting its fair share of the bail out monies. As if.

There appears to be no lows to which he will stoop. And so much for his new Advisors.

There was much celebration later in the day when China finally added Canada to its "approved destination status".

We are now in the agust company of such distinguished Human Rights Promotors as: Cuba; Burma; Ghana; Pakistan; Sri Lanka; Syria; Uganda; and Zimbabwe. Imagine? Aren't we fortunate.

I was listening to the Business Channel where its guests were unanimous in finding that Harper has been remiss in not pursuing more ties with China. 'We in Canada have lost so much economically due to his misguided approach'.

Well I have news for these so-called experts - it is China that has lost out by pursuing its ruthless agenda. Moreover, they are and industrial giant - and therefore makes things.

Indeed, any country can manufacture items but Canada is in the unique position of having the scarce resources needed make that happen. There is no limit across the world for our valuable resources.

Bottomline, China needs Canada more than we need China.

As I see it..

Note: I asked for input re my recent article on Caledonia and was disappointed by the limited reply. Only 6 came in - 4 in favour of police action and 1 in favour of a status quo approach. The 6th said he was undecided but leaning to taking action. I found his rationale of interest:

"If I was Premier and knew that police action would likely result in the death of human beings I would have trouble making that decision. I understand the importance of enforcing the Rule of Law but to know someone may have to die to enforce it is sobering for me."

"Galagher"