Talk:Pierre Trudeau - Revision history

RJJensen: defense

2009-11-09T19:25:29Z

defense

MichaelHWC: /* Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy, */

2009-11-09T18:44:36Z

Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy,

RJJensen: /* Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy, */ explain

2009-11-09T17:49:27Z

Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy,: explain

MichaelHWC: /* Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy, */

2009-11-09T05:10:36Z

Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy,

MichaelHWC: /* Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy, */ new section

2009-11-09T05:07:46Z

Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy,: new section

RJJensen: /* Born in Montreal, no? */ oui

2009-11-09T02:30:51Z

Born in Montreal, no?: oui

MichaelHWC: /* Born in Montreal, no? */ new section

2009-11-09T02:26:15Z

Born in Montreal, no?: new section

Boomcoach: 15th Canadian liberal Prime Minister

2008-01-25T20:58:19Z

15th Canadian liberal Prime Minister

Barikada at 02:06, January 24, 2008

2008-01-24T02:06:54Z

Fox at 02:00, January 24, 2008

2008-01-24T02:00:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, November 9, 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:
	::Good point. Canada's defense is 99% under US control so it lacks independence in foreign policy. Therefore Trudeau tried symbolic things like statements that annoyed Americans. I expanded the military section. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 12:49, 9 November 2009 (EST)		::Good point. Canada's defense is 99% under US control so it lacks independence in foreign policy. Therefore Trudeau tried symbolic things like statements that annoyed Americans. I expanded the military section. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 12:49, 9 November 2009 (EST)
	:::where did you get the 99% figure from? It would seem to me that if the Americans controlled that much of the Canadian military, the Canadians would have fought in Vietnam and Iraq, allowed for the deployment of a nuclear arsenal on Canadian soil, etc. etc. [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 13:44, 9 November 2009 (EST)		:::where did you get the 99% figure from? It would seem to me that if the Americans controlled that much of the Canadian military, the Canadians would have fought in Vietnam and Iraq, allowed for the deployment of a nuclear arsenal on Canadian soil, etc. etc. [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 13:44, 9 November 2009 (EST)
		+	::::all of Canada's defense against Russia was controlled by the US. It could defend itself against anyone else. The US did not try to control Canada's foreign policy. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 14:25, 9 November 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, November 9, 2009
Line 20:		Line 20:
	...and yet the rest of the pgph goes on to show how Canada did precisely that--friendliness towards moscow, etc. not to mention not getting suckered into Vietnem. How about the centrality of UN peacekeeping to Canada's foreign policy during the 1970s and 80s? And why take out the bits about nuclear weapons and reduced NATO commitment? [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 00:07, 9 November 2009 (EST)		...and yet the rest of the pgph goes on to show how Canada did precisely that--friendliness towards moscow, etc. not to mention not getting suckered into Vietnem. How about the centrality of UN peacekeeping to Canada's foreign policy during the 1970s and 80s? And why take out the bits about nuclear weapons and reduced NATO commitment? [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 00:07, 9 November 2009 (EST)
	::Good point. Canada's defense is 99% under US control so it lacks independence in foreign policy. Therefore Trudeau tried symbolic things like statements that annoyed Americans. I expanded the military section. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 12:49, 9 November 2009 (EST)		::Good point. Canada's defense is 99% under US control so it lacks independence in foreign policy. Therefore Trudeau tried symbolic things like statements that annoyed Americans. I expanded the military section. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 12:49, 9 November 2009 (EST)
		+	:::where did you get the 99% figure from? It would seem to me that if the Americans controlled that much of the Canadian military, the Canadians would have fought in Vietnam and Iraq, allowed for the deployment of a nuclear arsenal on Canadian soil, etc. etc. [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 13:44, 9 November 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, November 9, 2009
Line 19:		Line 19:

	...and yet the rest of the pgph goes on to show how Canada did precisely that--friendliness towards moscow, etc. not to mention not getting suckered into Vietnem. How about the centrality of UN peacekeeping to Canada's foreign policy during the 1970s and 80s? And why take out the bits about nuclear weapons and reduced NATO commitment? [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 00:07, 9 November 2009 (EST)		...and yet the rest of the pgph goes on to show how Canada did precisely that--friendliness towards moscow, etc. not to mention not getting suckered into Vietnem. How about the centrality of UN peacekeeping to Canada's foreign policy during the 1970s and 80s? And why take out the bits about nuclear weapons and reduced NATO commitment? [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 00:07, 9 November 2009 (EST)
		+	::Good point. Canada's defense is 99% under US control so it lacks independence in foreign policy. Therefore Trudeau tried symbolic things like statements that annoyed Americans. I expanded the military section. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 12:49, 9 November 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:10, November 9, 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:
	== Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy, ==		== Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy, ==

−	...and yet the rest of the pgph goes on ~~toshow~~ how Canada did precisely that. [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 00:07, 9 November 2009 (EST)	+	...and yet the rest of the pgph goes on to show how Canada did precisely that--friendliness towards moscow, etc. not to mention not getting suckered into Vietnem. How about the centrality of UN peacekeeping to Canada's foreign policy during the 1970s and 80s? And why take out the bits about nuclear weapons and reduced NATO commitment? [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 00:07, 9 November 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:07, November 9, 2009
Line 15:		Line 15:
	No? [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 21:26, 8 November 2009 (EST)		No? [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 21:26, 8 November 2009 (EST)
	::oui. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 21:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)		::oui. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 21:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	== Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy, ==
		+
		+	...and yet the rest of the pgph goes on toshow how Canada did precisely that. [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 00:07, 9 November 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:30, November 9, 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:

	No? [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 21:26, 8 November 2009 (EST)		No? [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 21:26, 8 November 2009 (EST)
		+	::oui. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 21:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, November 9, 2009
Line 10:		Line 10:

	The way this was written, it looked like Trudeau was the 15th liberal PM, rather than the 15th overall. I removed the Liberal part. He is clearly identified as the leader of the Liberal Party in the next paragraph, so I don't think I am commiting any liberal deceit by removing it.		The way this was written, it looked like Trudeau was the 15th liberal PM, rather than the 15th overall. I removed the Liberal part. He is clearly identified as the leader of the Liberal Party in the next paragraph, so I don't think I am commiting any liberal deceit by removing it.
		+
		+	== Born in Montreal, no? ==
		+
		+	No? [[User:MichaelHWC\|MichaelHWC]] 21:26, 8 November 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, January 25, 2008
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:::Yeah, I know the story. But its value to the article? "Trudeau was accused of silently mouthing obscenities at his opponents in Parliament." Beyond that, you then have to start explaining what the phrase is a euphemism for, and that certainly won't stand in CP :) [[Image:User Fox.png\|10px]] [[User:Fox\|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Fox\|contribs]])</small> 21:00, 23 January 2008 (EST)		:::Yeah, I know the story. But its value to the article? "Trudeau was accused of silently mouthing obscenities at his opponents in Parliament." Beyond that, you then have to start explaining what the phrase is a euphemism for, and that certainly won't stand in CP :) [[Image:User Fox.png\|10px]] [[User:Fox\|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Fox\|contribs]])</small> 21:00, 23 January 2008 (EST)
	::::Aww... :( [[User:Barikada\|Barikada]] 21:06, 23 January 2008 (EST)		::::Aww... :( [[User:Barikada\|Barikada]] 21:06, 23 January 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	== 15th Canadian liberal Prime Minister ==
		+
		+	The way this was written, it looked like Trudeau was the 15th liberal PM, rather than the 15th overall. I removed the Liberal part. He is clearly identified as the leader of the Liberal Party in the next paragraph, so I don't think I am commiting any liberal deceit by removing it.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:06, January 24, 2008
Line 5:		Line 5:
	::Personally, I'd say it should probably qualify as just a little piece of trivia, not it's own page or something. [[User:Barikada\|Barikada]] 20:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)		::Personally, I'd say it should probably qualify as just a little piece of trivia, not it's own page or something. [[User:Barikada\|Barikada]] 20:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)
	:::Yeah, I know the story. But its value to the article? "Trudeau was accused of silently mouthing obscenities at his opponents in Parliament." Beyond that, you then have to start explaining what the phrase is a euphemism for, and that certainly won't stand in CP :) [[Image:User Fox.png\|10px]] [[User:Fox\|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Fox\|contribs]])</small> 21:00, 23 January 2008 (EST)		:::Yeah, I know the story. But its value to the article? "Trudeau was accused of silently mouthing obscenities at his opponents in Parliament." Beyond that, you then have to start explaining what the phrase is a euphemism for, and that certainly won't stand in CP :) [[Image:User Fox.png\|10px]] [[User:Fox\|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Fox\|contribs]])</small> 21:00, 23 January 2008 (EST)
		+	::::Aww... :( [[User:Barikada\|Barikada]] 21:06, 23 January 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:00, January 24, 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:
	::No... he was accused of mouthing profanity while someone else was speaking. When asked about it (And then badgered for a bit and asked about the "nature of [his] thoughts") he responded with "What is the nature of your thoughts, gentlemen, when you say “fuddle duddle” or something like that? God, you guys…!"		::No... he was accused of mouthing profanity while someone else was speaking. When asked about it (And then badgered for a bit and asked about the "nature of [his] thoughts") he responded with "What is the nature of your thoughts, gentlemen, when you say “fuddle duddle” or something like that? God, you guys…!"
	::Personally, I'd say it should probably qualify as just a little piece of trivia, not it's own page or something. [[User:Barikada\|Barikada]] 20:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)		::Personally, I'd say it should probably qualify as just a little piece of trivia, not it's own page or something. [[User:Barikada\|Barikada]] 20:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)
		+	:::Yeah, I know the story. But its value to the article? "Trudeau was accused of silently mouthing obscenities at his opponents in Parliament." Beyond that, you then have to start explaining what the phrase is a euphemism for, and that certainly won't stand in CP :) [[Image:User Fox.png\|10px]] [[User:Fox\|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Fox\|contribs]])</small> 21:00, 23 January 2008 (EST)