# Re: Editorial: Carolyn Parrish on Afghanistan



## jmackenzie_15 (28 Jul 2005)

Note from Mike Bobbitt: This thread contains the commentary for this editorial 



OMFG

Im speechless.How stupid can she be?!

"not only kill, but be killed themselves!"

THIS IS NOT GREEN PEACE MS PARRISH, THIS IS THE ARMY, THIS IS WHAT WE DO, AND HAVE BEEN DOING FOR DECADES.

I can not understand how someone so ignorant and detached from reality can get into any place of power.Who votes these people in!?

"I will vote to bring down the government"

OMG soldiers died in a war thats been ongoing for almost 5 years! What a failure of leadership by the government!
She should be deported.

/rant_off


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (28 Jul 2005)

Honestly, what does she seriously beleive the military to be?
It scares me that someone like this is in charge of ANYTHING.

When you hear the phrase "Invasion of Afghanistan" and "War on Al qaeda"
what did you think? I dont know about you Ms Parrish, but I certainly did not envision group discussions and counselling.

Its war, people die.Get over yourself.
I bet shed be singing a very differetn tune if her family were blown up on a subway in Toronto.


----------



## on guard for thee (28 Jul 2005)

Point 1:     In total agreement that this woman is a windbag, and would say anything, with a microphone in front of her, to see herself on the news!

Point 2:     Unlike poison ivy, this nuisance WILL disappear if we, as a country, stop paying attention to her.

Point 3:     Perhaps given her concerns, she should plan to visit the troops. Once she sees the professional soldiers in action, and the conditions they are there to change, perhaps her cerebellum will slide back into alignment with her mouth!

My 2 cents.


----------



## beltfeedPaul (28 Jul 2005)

I think Ms. Parrish is a little confused as to the reasons why countries maintain armed forces. The army is a tool the government employs to further its ideological aims. In this case, the Canadian government has concluded that the only way to secure and promote democracy in Afghanistan is to participate in an international effort to eliminate the root causes of Afghanistans problems, namely the Taliban, Al Queda, rampant opium production, and abject poverty and illiteracy. We (Canada) can't just wish those problems away, we have to be involved, in a concrete and meaningful fashion. Not even the likes of a Parrish can dispute the progress Afghani women have enjoyed over the last 3 years, thanks wholly to the elimination of a brutal, fundamentalist Islamic regime. I think with the next election, Ms. Parrish's 15 minutes of ill gotten fame will thankfully end, along with her grandiose threats to bring down the government.


----------



## cgyflames01 (28 Jul 2005)

I wish she would once and for all stifle herself. This is the same windbag that stomped on the Bush doll on 22 minutes. She has a knack for saying the wrong things at the wrong time, and understandably the Liberals knew enough to boot her out of the party. God hope her constituentswill know better then to re-elect her, so we wont have to endure her comments anymore.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (28 Jul 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> When you hear the phrase "Invasion of Afghanistan" and "War on Al qaeda"
> what did you think? I dont know about you Ms Parrish, but I certainly did not envision group discussions and counselling.



"Hello my name is Osama and i have a problem"

"Hello Osama..."

 :


----------



## Chimo (28 Jul 2005)

Why not take a minute and let Ms Parrish appreciate you partaking in your right to free speech.   I did!

Her email is: 'parric@parl.gc.ca'


----------



## rcr (28 Jul 2005)

Carolyn, go back to the school board where they have the capacity for your BS.  It doesn't belong in the Federal Gov't.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (28 Jul 2005)

Chimo said:
			
		

> Why not take a minute and let Ms Parrish appreciate you partaking in your right to free speech.    I did!
> 
> Her email is: 'parric@parl.gc.ca'



Thank you very much chimo! 

I think I may express to her my lack of appreciation of her said comments, and reccommend she do more research on what the Canadian Armed Forces is employed to do.Note the Armed part.

This is NOT Kids help phone, ms parrish.


----------



## Blakey (28 Jul 2005)

Quick Google on the "The Ruxted Consortium", turned up nothing, is there more information on this group?


----------



## Baloo (28 Jul 2005)

[tinfoil hat]

I sense an Army.ca conspiracy. 

The Ruxted Consortium? Would this have anything to do with a haggard assortment of forum elders combining the sum total of their knowledge in order to produce a document SO GREAT, that it will overpower the government?

Or may I make such a bold statement...is this any coincidence that we have not heard from...DUH DUH DUH...TEDDY RUXPIN???

*audible gasps*

[/tinfoil hat]


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (28 Jul 2005)

! OMG!!

3 section! into the bomb shelter!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jul 2005)

Oh poop, here come those black helo's again.....


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (28 Jul 2005)

LOS LOS LOS!!!!!
 adopt the stand and load position!
Government agents to your front! on your own time! Run away!


----------



## Matt_Fisher (28 Jul 2005)

Is there a link or could someone please repring the original article that Parrish was featured in?  (I know I'll get a headache from reading it, but I'd like to see what all this is about).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jul 2005)

Check the political section, Matt, its in there somewhere.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (28 Jul 2005)

Here's a repost:



MP Parrish furious over Afghanistan mission
Ex-Liberal says she'd vote government down if troops die in new role

Anne Dawson
The Ottawa Citizen


Thursday, July 28, 2005


Independent MP Carolyn Parrish lashed out again at the Liberal government yesterday-- this time criticizing Defence Minister Bill Graham for sending combat troops to Afghanistan and Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan for making "taunting" remarks about Canadians being potential terrorist targets.

Ms. Parrish is furious that Canadians and their politicians have not been consulted about what she calls the new role Canadian soldiers are being asked to carry out in Afghanistan, a role that includes killing, which is not the traditional job of peacekeeping. She warns there will be outrage when Canadians in uniform return home "in body bags."

Ms. Parrish, who was booted out of the Liberal caucus last year after she criticized the government of U.S. President George W. Bush as "bastards" and "idiots," also said she is interested in returning to the Liberal fold, but only if she receives a personal invitation from the prime minister that has no strings attached.

Meanwhile, the opinionated MP spoke harshly about Canada's new role in Afghanistan.

"We're sending in armed troops to kill people (in Afghanistan). This is a drastic change in direction. I don't think anybody has consulted with the Canadian public. The first time Canadian soldiers come back in body bags, you just wait for the outcry," said Ms. Parrish, who was elected as a Liberal in 1993 but has been sitting in the backbenches as an independent MP since last year.

"If this thing gets any deeper in (Afghanistan) and we get a couple of dead Canadians back, I'll vote to bring the government down the first opportunity I got."

Ms. Parrish helped prop up the fragile minority government when she voted with the Liberals on a number of confidence votes, including the budget and same-sex marriage legislation. Since then, some of her colleagues have been speaking to her about rejoining the caucus.

But she remains as outspoken as ever, criticizing Liberal cabinet ministers.

"Anne McLellan's not helping," added Ms. Parrish. "Every time I have the TV on there's a comment from her (that) 'we're not safe, we could be next.' What are we doing taunting people?"

Ms. Parrish made her comments as Prime Minister Paul Martin begins two days of business travel to Toronto, Timmins, Ont., and Winnipeg for his first public events in almost two weeks. Mr. Martin has spent most of his time at his Quebec farm since he returned from the G-8 summit in Scotland on July 8.

Ms. Parrish fired off a letter to Mr. Graham 10 days ago about her concerns in Afghanistan, and was particularly critical of Canada's new chief of the defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, who she said should be "muzzled." Speaking to reporters about the Canadian troop deployment to Kandahar, Gen. Hillier referred to terrorists as "murderers and scumbags" and made clear he believes the job of the Armed Forces is "to be able to kill people."

In the letter to Mr. Graham, Ms. Parrish wrote: "I implore you to muzzle the beast, assume command of Canada's agenda in your usual articulate, dignified and intelligent way. Let the Canadian public know Gen. Hillier does not speak for our government."

Mr. Graham, who was in Edmonton for the send off of 110 Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan, was unavailable for comment Wednesday but his spokesperson, Renee Filiatrault, said the minister "absolutely" supports the job Hillier is doing.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (28 Jul 2005)

Pit bull Parrish is at it again. 

Outspoken Independent MP Carolyn Parrish issued an open letter to Defence Minister Bill Graham yesterday, blasting his chief of defence staff as "truly barbaric" and calling on the government to "muzzle the beast." 

Parrish, who was turfed from the Liberal caucus after calling Americans "bastards" and stomping on a George W. Bush doll for a satire program, said she's offended by Gen. Rick Hillier's recent comments. 

Canada's top soldier called terrorists "murderers and scumbags" and said the armed forces must be prepared to kill people. 

"For the top general in this country to emulate the simplistic phrasing of Mr. Bush, on behalf of you and our government, is to degrade the hard-earned reputation of this country and its people," Parrish wrote. 

Graham said he stands behind Hillier "100 percent." 



Quoted from Calgary Sun 28 July 2005


----------



## Korus (28 Jul 2005)

> Ms. Parrish is furious that Canadians and their politicians have not been consulted about what she calls the new role Canadian soldiers are being asked to carry out in Afghanistan, a role that includes killing, which is not the traditional job of peacekeeping.



Phew. At least peacekeeping isn't the_ traditional job of soldiers_.

Sorry Ms. Parrish, the terrorists will try and hurt us wherever they can. Why not fight them over *there*, on *our* terms, rather than over *here* on *their* terms.


----------



## career_radio-checker (28 Jul 2005)

I think we can take some reprieve knowing she is the only MP who doesn't seem to grasp the main purpose of the army. Heck, even the NDP know why we have guns.

Mrs Parrish,
All the power to you. The faster you bring down that government, the faster your constituents can vote you out of power.

Peace_out


----------



## Sergeant295 (28 Jul 2005)

Just a thought.  I will not pretend to be an expert on Canadian Governmental Policy, or the Canadian Forces but something occured to me as I was reading this.  Being a duel US/Canadian Citizen serving in the United States but growing up a great deal in the Greater Toronto Area I feel I have been blessed with a unique perspective on things. I, like many others out here, think that the way in which various Governments (mostly Liberal) have let the Canadian Forces shrink in size and equipment is terrible.  That said the Canadian Forces does a hell of a job and I have a great deal of respect for all you guys and the great job you do.  I occures to me though, that is woman Carolyn Parrish is the reason why things were allowed to get in the shape that they are in.  Her and everyone like her that takes their freedom for granted, then abuses it by insulting not only the entire country with comments like that but everyone who has ever worn the uniform.  To say that she feels that it is offensive for CF members to kill, by using the freedom of speach that CF members have fought and killed to protect for years is not only ludicious but in turn far more offensive then anything a soldier could do. It is a shame that after all the good the Canadian Forces has done, and will do in Afghanistan it has all taken a step back to the idiotic comments that this woman has made.  I agree with whoever said that if she is ignored she will disipear and I thinik everyone should make this the last post on this topic, as her comments no long deserve our attention.


----------



## Haggis (28 Jul 2005)

The following was e-mailed to Ms. Parrish:

_Good evening Ms. Parrish:

I read with great interest your recent comments regarding the deployment of Canadian Forces to the Kandahar region of Afghanistan.   I must say that I find them totally incomprehensible.   

You fail to support and assist the very people that you and every other  Canadian rely on to safeguard our country from an enemy which wants to put you and your fellow Members of Parliament out of business.   This perplexing outlook leads me to ask some questions:

Do you understand why the Canadian Forces exist?   Do you grasp why Canadian soldiers are taking the war to the enemy rather than having it come to us?   Do you understand the consequence of inaction?

More importantly, do you realize that members of the Canadian Forces want to do the jobs they've been trained to do?

Have you visited Canadian troops in mission areas overseas, Ms. Parrish?   Have you walked with infantry soldiers though dark back alleys or sat with Coyote crews in biting dust storms?   Have you gone with mechanics to recover a broken down vehicle at the bottom of a snow covered switchback?   Have you followed engineers working to de-mine uncleared routes?   Have you stood, sweating buckets, on the flight line while Hercules are loaded and fuelled to supply those same troops?   Have you stood bone numb with cold on the ice slicked deck of a frigate during a search for smugglers? 

If not, I suggest you have your staff involve you in the CF Parliamentary Program. But be warned: this is not a photo op.

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/daod/2008/7_e.asp

Remember, some of those soldiers, sailors and air personnel, as well as their families and friends, are your constituents.   You would do well to support them. 

(signed) 
Sincerely proud of our troops;_ 

Replies from Ms. Parrish (if any) will be posted here.   I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Jul 2005)

Since you asked for a review.



> As a public, we need to be aware that the Government has committed the CF to a dangerous mission in a hostile part of Afghanistan, which does not resemble the old style Peacekeeping missions of the 1990's.



would be less ambiguous if worded as follows:



> As a public, we need to be aware that the Government has committed the CF to a dangerous mission in a hostile part of Afghanistan, *a mission which bears little resembelance* to the old style Peacekeeping missions of the 1990's.



Just to keep the subject-object relations clear.


----------



## Armymedic (28 Jul 2005)

Haggis, 

good post...

I would like someone to post to her and point out that she is trampling on our guaranteed freedom of speech which said General is sworn to defend....

Oh, and while your doing it, you may want to point out that the CDS has served as ISAF commander and is considered the Gov't expert in the area...


----------



## on guard for thee (28 Jul 2005)

no offence intended (except to you, Ms Parish)!!

"If this thing gets any deeper in (Afghanistan) and we get a couple of dead Canadians back, I'll vote to bring the government down the first opportunity I got."

did i daydream everything? or was Caroline too busy (being interviewed) to notice that this has already happened.......

GOD rest their souls......


----------



## Aislinn (29 Jul 2005)

I find it rather hypocritical that Parrish believes Gen. Hillier should be muzzled for his words "murderers" and "scumbags" in reference to terrorists, especially when considering her own words of "bastards" and "idiots" when referring to an allied country.


----------



## Dare (29 Jul 2005)

on guard for thee said:
			
		

> Point 2:     Unlike poison ivy, this nuisance WILL disappear if we, as a country, stop paying attention to her.


I disagree. Her kind of attitude needs to be confronted. She needs to be embarassed publicly, and repeatedly every time she is given the opportunity to speak. She puts her foot in her mouth, give it a few shoves for good measure.

On a side note. If any Conservative or Liberal MP's are taking heed, the usual grandiose, shocked-yet-furious retort should not be the measure. Laugh her off the stage. She's made this one almost too easy, if you blow it (which I have complete faith will be done) then she'll be back to business as usual.

EDIT: For side note.


----------



## Slim (29 Jul 2005)

Personally I would like to see her trivialized, maginalized and ultimately removed either by the govt or by her own constituants. I do agree that someone has to get in her face and call BS whenever she opens her cakehole.

She chews on the CDS for doing the very same things she does (Namecalling) And, if she is from a teaching background then I can understand all too clearly whats wrong with the country today if our educators are all even remotely like that!

She is an embarrassmsnt to Canada, and completely irrelevant.


----------



## Younghusband (29 Jul 2005)

Some comments from non-mil folks:

http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2005/07/28/parrish-the-thought/


----------



## Spr.Earl (29 Jul 2005)

OUCH!!!


----------



## mover1 (29 Jul 2005)

I would like to see her and Sheila Copps in a no holds barred jello fight.


----------



## Gramps (29 Jul 2005)

"I would like to see her and Sheila Copps in a no holds barred jello fight."

Or they could team up with Kim Campell and Catherine Callbeck for a no holds barred tag team cage match


----------



## Cpl.Banks (29 Jul 2005)

I would watch that  ;D...they all have to get the shiat kicked out of them though...I myslef have written a letter to miss Parish, I doubt she will write back but hey who knows!? Ill post it if she does :
UBIQUE!!!


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (29 Jul 2005)

A fight to the death.

That, or the losers get deported to denmark.
Or they all do.


Grr!


----------



## on guard for thee (29 Jul 2005)

No need to deport them to Denmark........here's my plan!

Send them to the little disputed island (forget the name) to "guard our sovereignty", since the army cant/shouldnt perform such tasks

Once in place, tell Denmark the island is all theirs..............as is................

Thoughts????


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Jul 2005)

Just as a side note, Carolyn Parrish is the poster child why a riding should have the right to "recall" its MP or MPP.

I hope the CPC adds this to their policy book in the fall....



Matthew.


----------



## rounder (29 Jul 2005)

Tell her what you think boys..... I did!




parric@parl.gc.ca


----------



## PKR_Chequer (29 Jul 2005)

on guard for thee said:
			
		

> Point 3:     Perhaps given her concerns, she should plan to visit the troops. Once she sees the professional soldiers in action, and the conditions they are there to change, perhaps her cerebellum will slide back into alignment with her mouth!



Brilliant idea, on guard.  IMNSHO, that would be the perfect response on the part of Gen. Hillier: invite Ms Parrish to visit the troops and see for herself.  With her trip(s) to Palestine, she's already demonstrated that she is willing to tour conflict-torn areas, so a few days in Kandahar accompanied and protected by the CF's finest should be no sweat for her...

Of course, this assumes her mind is actually open to being changed, which is doubtful.  IIRC, one of the groups which strongly supported her not only in her recent nomination battle with Mahoney but also in past elections, is the Islamic voters in Mississauga-Erindale.  From the _Globe and Mail_, March 8, 2004: 




> The battle for the Mississauga-Erindale nomination was a case of local politics being defined by global issues. The riding reflects a growing, worldwide demographic, with a large Muslim population keenly attuned to Mideast issues. Political insiders noted that Ms. Parrish was widely admired in the Muslim community, while Mr. Mahoney had attracted the support of Jews.



Make no mistake, with an election six months away, and facing the prospect of running as an independent, she is playing to her Islamic constituency with these comments.  This isn't about Afghanistan, Canada's place in the world, or the possibility that some of our soldiers may not return from this deployment.  This is about Parrish's re-election bid, plain and simple.

But what do I know? I don't even live in Toronto...


edit: spelling


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Jul 2005)

Guys, check your fire on the the religious angle a little bit. The problem isn't Islam, the problem is extremism based on misguided interpretations of Islam.

Cheers


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Jul 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> A fight to the death.
> 
> That, or the losers get deported to denmark.
> Or they all do.
> ...



How bout Russian Roulette with 6 rounds ? ;D


----------



## career_radio-checker (29 Jul 2005)

or Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jul 2005)

PKR_Chequer said:
			
		

> Brilliant idea, on guard.   IMNSHO, that would be the perfect response on the part of Gen. Hillier: invite Ms Parrish to visit the troops and see for herself.   With her trip(s) to Palestine, she's already demonstrated that she is willing to tour conflict-torn areas, so a few days in Kandahar accompanied and protected by the CF's finest should be no sweat for her...



Hmmmmm.... Our very own Hanoi Jane 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Could call her Kabul Carolyn


----------



## PKR_Chequer (29 Jul 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Guys, check your fire on the the religious angle a little bit. The problem isn't Islam, the problem is extremism based on misguided interpretations of Islam.



Hey whiskey,

Not sure if that was directed at me or not, but for the sake of clarification...

I agree totally with you that the problem is not Islam.  Although I'm a Christian, I've got Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Christian, athiest, etc, friends, colleagues, former roommates etc, and my comment wasn't intended as a slam against anybody's faith.

However...it's not an uncommon view that America's current foreign-policy adventures can be seen as a conflict between Western and Islamic  cultures (see for example _The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order_ by S. Huntington of Harvard University, which I've read *about*, but haven't actually read for myself yet - it's on the list!  I don't have any citations handy, but I have read many articles (some of them cited in various threads on this board, I think) quoting extremist Muslim clerics who draw analogies between Afghanistan, Iraq and the crusades of the Middle Ages, and make claims about American/Western/Christian (insert the adjective of your choice here) imperialism.  I'm sure that if one looked hard enough, you could also find the mirror-image of that "crusade" rhetoric coming from the extremes of the Christian right-wing in the West.)

Now I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation.  I think that like most other things, the current world situation probably boils down to economics, but that's a whole 'nuther debate for a whole 'nother time.  

What I am saying is that lots of people on both sides do agree with that view, and I suspect that Ms Parrish, being a politician, is attempting to play on those sentiments among the voters of her riding (especially those who are recent immigrants of the Islamic faith) in order to improve her chances in the next election.  But then again, I'm pretty cynical about politicians in general...   

I don't have any special insight into the minds of the Islamic immigrant/first-generation Canadian voters of CP's riding, but I suspect that many of them are confused as heck -- torn between an attachment to their new country and a feeling of connection to the culture they left behind. I think that's what Ms Parrish is counting on: at the end of the day she hopes that these voters will identify enough with their co-religionists on the other side of the world that they will vote for her because she has tried to portray herself as sympathetic to the issues facing Islamic nations.

Does that make sense?  I'm not asking you to agree with my analysis, but I hope you can see where I"m coming from.

No offense intended, except possibly to Ms Parrish whom I don't particularly like, (based solely on her public statements, I've never met the woman) and I hope that clarifies my position!


edit: tried to clarify a couple of ambiguous sentences


----------



## ArmyRick (29 Jul 2005)

Wait until Canadians come home in body bags ? 

Hey Ms Parrish, they already have...

SGT R. Shortt, RIP
CPL Beerenfenger, RIP
CPL Murphy, RIP 
and lets not forget
SGT Leger, RIP
CPL Dyer, RIP
Pte Green, RIP and
 Pte Smith, RIP...

They gave their lives for this country, Ms Parrish.


----------



## McG (29 Jul 2005)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> and lets not forget . . .


Lets not forget those that were killed in Bosnia & Croatia.


----------



## Gunner (29 Jul 2005)

> Lets not forget those that were killed in Bosnia & Croatia.



and every other Canadian soldier who fell around the world ensuring freedom for others.


----------



## Armymedic (29 Jul 2005)

Let us not forget, cause windbags like her do, as soon as it is pushed out of the newspapers by her idiotic comments.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2005)

Here is my contribution:



> 30 July 2005
> 
> Carolyn Parrish, MP
> House of Commons
> ...


----------



## KevinB (30 Jul 2005)

Outstanding job.


----------



## Armymedic (30 Jul 2005)

Excellent post Edward, you speak much more eloquent then I could.


----------



## MJP (30 Jul 2005)

Wow, just WOW.

Excellent letter Edward!


----------



## JasonH (31 Jul 2005)

*Independent maverick MP Carolyn Parrish not welcome back in caucus, PMO says*



> Tara Brautigam
> Canadian Press
> 
> Saturday, July 30, 2005
> ...


----------



## MikeM (31 Jul 2005)

Excellent letter Edward! Well done.


----------



## Shadowhawk (31 Jul 2005)

Great Letter .... that about sums it up.

 :warstory:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (31 Jul 2005)

Ed did you post that just to her or the papers as well?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Ed did you post that just to her or the papers as well?



Just to her; to her staffers in both her Ottawa and Mississauga offices, really.

The papers have been full of well considered objections; another isn't necessary.

She has, I'm sure, been bombarded with mail - probably more pro than con, truth to tell, in response to the number of contrary opinions expressed in editorials and letters in most papers and, I think, on radio and TV.

I think we need to remember that Parrish is popular in Canada and the _peacekeeping_ mythology is deeply ingrained in the national consciousness.  (See, e.g: _â ?Peacekeeping is awesome and I totally agree with it ...â ?_ in http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33074/post-246413.html#msg246413 )  I'm not trying to insult Oshawakid who, in his inaugural post told us he is 19 years old and wants to join, but what is it about peacekeeping that he finds so _"awesomeâ ?_?

For most of the past 35+ years the Government of Canada (regardless of political stripe) has propagated an _image_ of Canada in the world - the pictures at the bottom of the page pretty well sum it up.  Now and again - briefly in the mid-late '80s/very early '90s and again, just recently, the government-of-the-day has stepped out of the _peacekeeping_ shadows and actually told Canadians that it will send forces into battle.  Mostly however, as in the Balkans in the '90s, when the government-of-day uses the CF in combat it studiously avoids telling Canadians about it.  The message - in the media and in our schools - is relentless: _good, kind, gentle Canadians go around the world, without guns and bombs, and feed babies._  *Awesome*, indeed.  (The un-stated but loud and clear counterpoint is that _hard, cruel Americans go around killing innocents_.)  This policy, which became explicit in 1969 when the Trudeau government formally disavowed St. Laurent's engaged, activist _leading middle power_ policy and Pearson's _helpful fixer_ mode, was, and remains highly popular.

It must be remembered that the generation which supported this policy was the one which fought World War II; it shared, with the _intelligentsia_, strong anti-capitalist sentiments and a hope, perhaps a conviction that it must be possible to build and sustain a _caring and sharing_ society.  This generation came of age during the great depression - a searing social event which demanded villains, and greedy Wall Street (and, if you lived on the prairies, Chicago Board of Trade) capitalists filled the bill.

By the mid '60s the million men (mostly men) who fought World War II were prospering - beyond the dreams they might have held in 1935.  They were, also, imbued with a new nationalism as Canada approached its centennial.  They were, rightfully, proud of their country and its new, active, leadership role in the world and leading the way in the UN - including _peacekeeping_ - was one of the things in which they took pride.  Canadians really did want a _third way_ - the _million men_ (in uniform, in 1945) had chafed at being thought to be British by too many Americans and being thought to be _colonials_ by too many British.  They wanted an independent Canada - but one with _values_ created by the great depression (a mean, niggardly, penny pinching view of the world) and by the explosion of American mass, popular culture (envy of whatever _celebrity_ appears on the US stage and a desire to have a Canadian this and Canadian that).  They, and their children, were ripe for the Pierre Trudeau/Ivan Head _revolution_ in foreign policy.  It wasn't what most of the _million men_ wanted, not at all, but by the time they woke up and saw the shape of the new Canada their children - now teen-agers and young adults, were firmly _on side_.  The children of the _million men_ are, of course, the _boomers_ - and they run Canada.

I don't expect Ms. Parrish to read, much less acknowledge my letter; I expect her staff to add it to the smaller, contrarian pile.  I expect her staff to reassure Ms. Parrish that:

"¢	Most Canadians are on her side - confirmed by their own letter/e-mail count and by the detailed, expert polling which Liberal Party of Canada officials still share with Ms. Parrish; and

"¢	Although she may not be welcomed back into the Liberal Party she will still get all the perquisites and benefits including pork-barrel projects and a _rope-a-dope_, sacrificial lamb, official Liberal opponent in the next general election.

_Awesome_ is an interesting word - one I would apply to very large, very bight things (like nuclear explosions) but never, ever to a military sideshow which tries to prop up a failed foreign policy.

</rant>


----------



## Hunter911 (1 Aug 2005)

Great job Edward... Im really glad someone said what had to be said  

On another note, in an article on Rick Hillier in the Globe and Mail, Saturday July 30th, Ms. Parrish said "...we are not about to throw away a noble reputation in the world because of a testosterone filled General, and i think someone should put a clamp on his mouth."

 :-\... Does this seem wrong and ignorant to anyone else?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (1 Aug 2005)

Hunter911 said:
			
		

> Great job Edward... Im really glad someone said what had to be said
> 
> On another note, in an article on Rick Hillier in the Globe and Mail, Saturday July 30th, Ms. Parrish said "...we are not about to throw away a noble reputation in the world because of a testosterone filled General, and i think someone should put a clamp on his mouth."
> 
> :-\... Does this seem wrong and ignorant to anyone else?



Hey, if being a decisive , iintelligent leader requires testosterone, Ms Parrish might think consider getting the neccesary surgery done ;D. Might help her get back into the caucus :


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2005)

Hunter911 said:
			
		

> Great job Edward... Im really glad someone said what had to be said
> ...



It is also a matter of saying it in a respectful manner.  Ms Parrish, unlike us, has stood for election and the electors have seen fit to choose her as their representative.  She deserves our respect for that - but not, necessarily, our agreement with her views and positions or our respect for the way she chooses to express them.

Just got this a few minutes ago:



> From: Carolyn Parrish, M.P. cparrish@rogers.blackberry.net
> Sent: August 2, 2005 6:31:03 PM
> To: "Edward Campbell" ____________@hotmail.com
> Subject: *Thank you
> ...



I am mindful of a comment by a now sadly dead colonel from my old Regiment who reminded us of the symbolism of changing the guard on Parliament Hill rather than a Rideau Hall.  It is our constitutional democracy which we defend, in the name of our sovereign; the 'heart' of our constitutional democracy sits in the middle of the _precincts of parliament_ and that is where we, symbolically, mount guard for the nation.  (The guard is posted at Rideau Hall, of course, to 'guard' our commander-in-chief â â€œ also of symbolic importance.)  When we defend our constitutional democracy we also defend the parliamentarians, including Ms. Parrish, all of them, some of whom I detest quite thoroughly.  We may detest (some of) them but we owe them our loyalty and a modicum of respect, at least for the office they hold.  The same, in a way, as saluting the commission â â€œ even when you despise the officer holding it.


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Replies from Ms. Parrish (if any) will be posted here.



I got one!!!

_Thank you for a very eloquent description of the life of one of our very brave, very competent soldiers.  I've been to Bosnia, the Middle East and other hot spots.
Needlessly putting soldiers in danger to prop up an American appointed puppet government is a crying shame.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Parrish, M.P.
Mississauga-Erindale_

Although I give her bonus points for replying, she didn't answer my questions.


----------



## Springroll (3 Aug 2005)

Carolyn Parrish is a disgrace to any one who serves this country. 

She takes those rights and freedoms that many gave their lives for, and abuses them, and in turn makes all of us look bad.

Time to get her out of office and back into the real world, where she may actually learn something.


----------



## Jewer (3 Aug 2005)

Ms. Parrish, even though being a liberal MP, and elected by persons of her constituency, and i have full respect for her, still seems unaware of what a military is. A military, even though it is the "new age", and with the "war on terror", is still an armed force which the government uses to represent the intrests of its country. General Hillier is a very intelligent person, and is quite reserved, he knows when to speak and when not to, he is well suited for CDS as he is able to be a politician as needed, he is still, fortunately, able to be a soldier, and is able to keep his troops in mind. It is not easy to please all, and it is for this reason we are a diplomatic country, and there will always be persons who disagree with national laws and opinions. Myself I feel that Mr. Hillier is doing his job as Chief of Defense Staff, by keeping the interests of Canada in mind and enforcing the laws and beliefs of Canada. We all know persons in the military, but all the people i know in the military pledge their full support to their CDS, We all know that being in the military is not easy, but it is a way of life which we chose when we pledged our oath to the Queen, and to protect Canada, If people in the military can not accept this duty, then did they lie when they swore upon the bible of solemnly acclaimed their allegiance to the Queen of Canada, and her successors ....?

         It all boils down to this.
             -We have a competent CDS, who would not send us on "useless missions and off to our deaths" unless there was a true threat to the Canadian way of life. If this were the case, he would not be CDS.
             - It is part of our commitment as members of the CF to go on these missions, if we did not agree or accept these consequences we would not have joined, and would still be members of the public.
             - Ms. Parish, we respect you as a Member of Parliament, but as bad as it may seem, being part of this military is part of our lives, and as many of others did, i swore upon the bible to protect My Country, and Its interests, and if General Rick Hillier decides, along with his many advisor's and the government of Canada, which was also elected by Canada, if he decides that we must go, then it is our duty to go, we are all soldiers, and we follow "the decisions from upon high".

Gen. Hillier.....   .... from me and all others with whom i serve with.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Aug 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I got one!!!
> 
> _Thank you for a very eloquent description of the life of one of our very brave, very competent soldiers.   I've been to Bosnia, the Middle East and other hot spots.
> Needlessly putting soldiers in danger to prop up an American appointed puppet government is a crying shame.
> ...



Seems she's not a Karzai fan.  I'm curious to know what she thinks we should be doing (not that I really care).


----------



## canadianblue (3 Aug 2005)

I got an e-mail response



> Congradulations on your career choice.  In fact, I have never denigrated our men
> and women in uniform.  I resent when politicians unnecessarily put them in
> harm's way.
> 
> ...


----------



## rmc_wannabe (3 Aug 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> I got an e-mail response



is it just me, or does she sound a lot like a teacher scolding a student for having a different point of view ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2005)

Just doesn't get it, does she.


----------



## Gill557 (3 Aug 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just doesn't get it, does she.


Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Besides, we all enlisted to defend the rights of Canadians, including the right to be ignorant.  ;D


----------



## Chimo (3 Aug 2005)

I resent the way a pompous politician can be so disrespectful of the CDS. A Solider that has given his whole adult life to the service of his country and protecting the very people that oppose this deployment.  

As a minimum Ms Parrish need to apologise to Gen Hillier for her rude personal remarks about him. Anyone wanna bet when that will happen.


----------



## Big Foot (3 Aug 2005)

Chimo, I got a bet for you: NEVER. It seems in this country, if you slag a politician, you gotta apologize for it, but if you choose to slag a military officer, in this case, the CDS, its fair game. Sad really.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2005)

Excuse the length of this, but I don't want to lose anything. I sure some have read it before. Maybe our politicians will also.

ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D.,author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. 

The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely  to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was
honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was
the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an
operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal
to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible
evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... "Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.


----------



## Dare (4 Aug 2005)

Brilliance.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Aug 2005)

your kidding about them reading it right?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Aug 2005)

As my sig line says 
â Å“Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.â ?
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

2 Questions
1.  What's Parrishes email
2.  Any chance we can get permission to post this on every newpaper editorial


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Aug 2005)

disregard email 1.

Lets just say that I just made it easier for key officials to see it.


----------



## Shadowhawk (4 Aug 2005)

Excellent Read... Thanks for posting it.

Cheers


----------



## Slim (4 Aug 2005)

That was one really excellent article!


----------



## bubba (4 Aug 2005)

parrish is fried.i like hillier seems like he got a set, time will tell.


----------



## McG (4 Aug 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> I got an e-mail response:
> "Canada's last fifty years have been devoted to peacemaking, not attacking
> hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians with bombs."


This just validates my perception of her ignorance on what the military does & how we operate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2005)

bubba said:
			
		

> parrish is fried.i like hillier seems like he got a set, time will tell.



Maybe I'm harping rather than discussing, but: while I'm certainly not Carolyn Parrish's defender â â€œ even if she wanted one, I'm not at all sure she is 'fried.'

Ms. Parrish's views re: US foreign policy, President Bush, General Hillier or the next Afghanistan mission may not sit well with many of us but they are not outside the Canadian mainstream.  She may be closer to the _centre_ of Canadian socio-political thought or opinion than many, probably most of us here on army.ca.

Ms. Parrish, like all Canadians, is entitled to her views â â€œ surely, one of the things we* are defending is the right of Canadians to hold and voice whatever political opinions they choose.  Free speech is never more in need of defence than when it is unpopular.

Ms. Parrish put herself up for election; the voters of her riding selected her â â€œ out of a field of several candidates.  Some of those candidates would, almost certainly, find greater favour with me â â€œ maybe with you too â â€œ than Ms. Parrish, *but* most** of the people who came out to vote in Mississauga-Erindale in 2004 didn't see it that way; they chose her.  That gives her a special right, over and above that accorded to all other Canadians, like you and me, to propagate her views.  We don't have to like her views; we don't have to like or respect her, as a person; we _should_ respect the fact that she has been chosen, by the people, to serve.

(I'm certain that a fair number of soldiers, NCOs and officers disliked me, personally â â€œ some probably fairly intensely; some did not hold me in high professional esteem; that did not prevent them from saluting smartly, saying 'Sir,' and getting on with the task of obeying my orders because they put aside their dislike and their considered views on my competence and respected the office to which I had been appointed.  I do the same with Ms. Parrish and every other elected person in Canada â â€œ even the ones I am pretty certain are crooks.  I recommend it as a general policy, it avoids all manner of _heartburn_.  I recall being proved very wrong about a senior officer I despised; one I admired turned out to have feet of clay and morals to match; live and learn.)

I believe Canadians can and should disagree strongly but civilly with many (most, in my case) of the views Ms. Parrish has expressed on foreign and defence policy related areas.  I believe soldiers should do that while affirming their responsibility to protect her rights to think and say what she does â â€œ muddled as her thoughts and words may be.

My guess is that Ms. Parrish is likely to be re-elected without difficulty in the next general election.  My guess is that the Liberals will run a _rope-a-dope_ candidate against her in return for her continued loyalty in parliament.  The PM may even drop a few goodies in her riding if the NDP or Tories field a strong challenger.

So, I don't think being _fried_ is anywhere on Ms. Parrish's horizon.  I will continue to criticize what she says and the way she says it because I disagree with both.  I will try to do so in a civil, even respectful manner.

----------
* Many of you, actually â â€œ I just cheer from the well shaded sidelines, comfortably settled on a soft, wide seat, pink gin in hand, etc.

** 28,000+ of the voters against 23,000+ for all the other candidates combined (see: http://www.elections.ca/scripts/OVR2004/default.html )


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (5 Aug 2005)

After reading and listening to the CDS speak about the
Canadian Soldiers going overseas and the mission they
are undertaking, his words were strong and to the
point.
He is sending his troops on a  war like mission. I
think Canadian should take his speech to heart and
realize there well maybe wounded and dead soldiers
coming home. Canadian soldiers train well, do a great
job with the equipment, the rules they are given to
operate under.

Independent MP Carolyn Parrish her speech undermines
the training, shows a lack of faith and a lack of
respect for the Canadian Soldiers on this mission.
Maybe she needs to be put on point and made to walk
the talk. The CDS is a very frank, outspoken soldier
and the PMO knew that  before they hired him. He has
done the walk, and can do the talk. This MP wanting to
create headlines is just a want to be. 
Good luck Troops, and good hunting


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2005)

FormerHordeGuard,

I agree 100% with your statement. My only question is, after all your other posts, is it yours, or someone else's?
Not that it matters much, it's true, succinct, and to the point. Just doesn't sound like you. If it's from someone else, I'd be glad to read more of their rhetoric.


----------



## Slim (5 Aug 2005)

> Ms. Parrish's views re: US foreign policy, President Bush, General Hillier or the next Afghanistan mission may not sit well with many of us but they are not outside the Canadian mainstream.  She may be closer to the centre of Canadian socio-political thought or opinion than many, probably most of us here on army.ca



Actually Ted I'm not so sure about that...I too thought the way you do until a recent visit to the CWM (you were there) changed my thinking on that somewhat. I agree that she was elected in her riding, which we all know is a very "immigrant heavy" area and whos sympathies probably do not lie with the U.S. on many issues. (Parrish may have somewhat inflamed their opinions about the war during her election campaign...We don't know)

What I do think is that that there is a very strong and silent majority who are more "like us" than we would have believed.

Of course I could be wrong...

Slim
.


----------



## bubba (5 Aug 2005)

well ed i stand by my opinion.ijust read some her email replys to some of the people here.to me hillier is lettin canadians know the dangers and realities of what can happen in afghanistan.she doesn't have a clue imho what the risks are.i think she seen that cbc comercial about cypres and figures gate guard is all canadian soldiers can an should be aloud to do on the war on terrorism.i wonder if carolyn's opinion would change if toronto's s buses &subway were hit.imo she should be pushin the govt to increase the size of the army.when i went threw battle school the sign above door said CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY.i guess in ottawa they don't have those signs over the doors in dnd buildings.me personly i hope it's an easy tour for the troops,only time will tell.and yes carolyn is intitled to her opinion just as much as you & i that is why its called a democracy.just because shes at the socio-political centre in missisauga she will probally get re-elected .she is speaking out against support for the us in a immigrant heavy area(as posted by slim)so my point is she's just tryin to get votes for the next election.typical politition,playin the angles imho....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Aug 2005)

Not to be critical bubba but could you capitalize the begining of each sentence and leave a space or two between each sentence.  It makes for reading posts that much easier.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2005)

bubba said:
			
		

> ... so my point is she's just tryin to get votes for the next election.typical politition,playin the angles imho....



That's precisely what she is; that's all she claims to be, really.

They, professional politicians, are a fairly new phenomenon in Canada.  Before Joe Clark most (not all, not even then) politicians came to it as a 'calling' after having established themselves in some form of business, or the law, or the civil service.

She is a _pro_ doing whatever it takes to earn and keep her job and pension.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Aug 2005)

Well Ed I stand by my opinion.   I just read some her email replys to some of the people here.   To me Hillier is letting Canadians know the dangers and realities of what can happen in Afghanistan.   She doesn't have a clue imho what the risks are.   I think she seen that CBC comercial about Cypres and figures gate guard is all canadian soldiers can and should be aloud to do on the war on terrorism.   I wonder if Carolyn's opinion would change if Toronto's s buses & subway were hit.   IMO she should be pushin the govt to increase the size of the army.   When I went threw battle school the sign above door said CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY.   I guess in Ottawa they don't have those signs over the doors in dnd buildings.   Me personly I hope it's an easy tour for the troops, only time will tell.   Yes Carolyn is entitled to her opinion just as much as you & I, that is why its called a democracy.   Just because shes at the socio-political centre in Missisauga she will probally get re-elected.   She is speaking out against support for the us in a immigrant heavy area (as posted by slim) so my point is she's just tryin to get votes for the next election. Typical pplitician, playin the angles imho....


----------



## bubba (5 Aug 2005)

hey CFL whats goin on,yep typin is not my thing but i'm tryin by the way are you in EDMONTON.I'M headin out in sept,we should get together 4 a beer or 2 or 3.yours truely the ever humble bubba.hahaha


----------



## Slim (5 Aug 2005)

bubba said:
			
		

> hey CFL whats goin on,yep typin is not my thing but i'm tryin by the way are you in EDMONTON.I'M headin out in sept,we should get together 4 a beer or 2 or 3.yours truely the ever humble bubba.hahaha



 ???


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Aug 2005)

sorry,


----------



## bubba (5 Aug 2005)

hey slim why the sad face.you can come over for a beer if ya want.i thought you were in missasauga or i would of ask you to......btw i spent jan,feb& march there workin.i drank at THE FIRKIN.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (5 Aug 2005)

it is my  post, my  words, i wrote it to the ottawa sun and they  never printed in letters to the editor. 
sometimes I can make more sense.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2005)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> it is my   post, my   words, *i wrote it to the ottawa sun and they  never printed in letters to the editor. *
> sometimes I can make more sense.



What did you expect? It makes to much sense.


----------



## Slim (5 Aug 2005)

bubba said:
			
		

> hey slim why the sad face.you can come over for a beer if ya want.i thought you were in missasauga or i would of ask you to......btw i spent jan,feb& march there workin.i drank at THE FIRKIN.



Its not sad...Just confused. Perhaps the little face couldn't understand your post?!


----------



## jmacleod (6 Aug 2005)

Edward Campbell is right MP Parrish will get relected. She knows how to play the media well, 
and comes across as the high school teacher, somewhat frustrated, who was a nag. I think she
expected a Cabinet post in the Martin government, and was passed over, but she knows how
to play the game in a Minority situation - at the moment her vote is important. She would also
be aware that General Hillier's important and accurate comments about going into harm's way
in Afghanistan, along with the new NATO committment of 17,600 troops (see Military.com) means
that the CDS has the tacit approval of the PMO (MND) - although it is anticipated that Minister
Graham will be moving out of the MND office soon. Every time Ms Parrish blows her cool, the media
drop their focus on the many and more pressing issues facing the Canadian military, and give her the
full spin treatment, especially the Toronto media. MacLeod


----------



## McG (6 Aug 2005)

Has anyone seen an official DND reply that has corrected her on her factual errors?  I'm not looking for an official counter opinion (these should & have come from elected officials).  However, the ADM responsible for public affairs should have a duty to correct every error presented as fact in the mainstream media (even starting with the fact that Winnipeg television could never seem to get the name of the PPCLI correct even when there was a bn in the city).

She is entitles to her opinion, but silence suggests that her facts were correct.


----------



## GDawg (6 Aug 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Edward Campbell is right MP Parrish will get relected. She knows how to play the media well,
> and comes across as the high school teacher, somewhat frustrated, who was a nag. I think she
> expected a Cabinet post in the Martin government, and was passed over, but she knows how
> to play the game in a Minority situation - at the moment her vote is important. She would also
> ...



Boy, wouldn't that be a treat if she was let back into the Liberals and became MND...
The SAT ranges would be converted to karaoke facilities to teach us how to play the accoustic guitar and sing about hand holding and flowers.


----------



## GDawg (6 Aug 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen an official DND reply that has corrected her on her factual errors?  I'm not looking for an official counter opinion (these should & have come from elected officials).  However, the ADM responsible for public affairs should have a duty to correct every error presented as fact in the mainstream media (even starting with the fact that Winnipeg television could never seem to get the name of the PPCLI correct even when there was a bn in the city).
> 
> She is entitles to her opinion, but silence suggests that her facts were correct.



Thats an excellent point. ADM(PA) should have a reality enforcement cell that seeks to correct some of the laughably inaccurate things that get printed or said about the CF.


----------



## Roy Harding (6 Aug 2005)

GDawg said:
			
		

> Thats an excellent point. ADM(PA) should have a reality enforcement cell that seeks to correct some of the laughably inaccurate things that get printed or said about the CF.



OUTSTANDING idea!!

Hey Anchorman!! - Are you reading this??  Stand by for PM.


----------



## wongskc (6 Aug 2005)

GDawg said:
			
		

> Thats an excellent point. ADM(PA) should have a reality enforcement cell that seeks to correct some of the laughably inaccurate things that get printed or said about the CF.



That's a brainstorm worth its gold right there!


----------



## bossi (6 Aug 2005)

Here is the "Letter Of The Day", and editor's reply, from today's Toronto Sun:



> Some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they have ever made a difference in the world. Others find out, when they least expect it. The other day, the clerk in a convenience store noticed some Arabic script on my t-shirt and said "ISAF -- where is he from?" referring to the International Security Assistance Force.
> 
> When I explained I had been in Kabul with the Canadian Army, he leaned over the counter and gave me the warmest hug -- the type that comes from the heart, and speaks volumes. Suddenly I was transported back to Afghanistan and all my memories of sitting down to tea with teachers and village elders while wearing body armour and carrying a loaded weapon, never knowing if a bomb, bullet or landmine was waiting for me.
> 
> ...



P.S. (I called her a female mutt, but they edited that out ...)


----------



## Slim (6 Aug 2005)

*WAY TO GO MARK!!!*


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Aug 2005)

Mark, I read your letter today in the sun, way to represent, dog!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (7 Aug 2005)

Outstanding!


----------



## Infanteer (7 Aug 2005)

Why would an ISAF shirt be in Arabic?


----------



## Britney Spears (7 Aug 2005)

Duuh, because that's what they use in Afghanistan? 


Dari, Pashto, Urdu, Tajik, Uzkek and many other Central Asian languages are written using the Arabic alphabet.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (7 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Dari, Pashto, Urdu, Tajik, Uzkek and many other Central Asian languages are written using the Arabic alphabet.



Variants of the Arabic script, actually.  But hey, it's all Greek to me.


----------



## Spr.Earl (7 Aug 2005)

Same as the Chinese and Japanese,they can read each others language as one borrowed one form the other,which one I for get and the Korean written language is the same but with their own twist. 

Back on subject,her problem is she is not very diplomatic but dogmatic about it and her English language skill's are quite lacking now if she was Churchhill it would be a differant story.


----------



## Franko (7 Aug 2005)

Great write up Mark.....

Perhapse I should write her a personal invite to come over and visit?

It's easy enough to shoot off your mouth from the safety of home...it's a wee different here.

Regards


----------



## jmacleod (7 Aug 2005)

Mark Bossi's Letter to the Sun is a classic. The "Letters" editor of many newspapers in Canada
in particular is the direct link between the public and the print media - you learn over the years
about "Letters Editors" - for instance, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald NS has an Editor who has her
own point of view on most subjects which arrive on her desk - it is rare for instance to read
anything critical of former Private Scott Taylor, who is published weekly in the newspaper. The
Globe and Mail Toronto also has their own slant, which is highly motivated by their support for
the homosexual world, focused on Toronto. The Sun papers, Toronto and Ottawa are normally
pissed off with the Liberal government, and their Letters Editors love to print nasty anti-Liberal
letters - the same can be said for the Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary Sun. The National Post
unfortunately has a Letters editor who must have graduated from ultra left wing Ryerson, Toronto
and is not exactly the media's brighest light. Ironically, the best source for Letters was the Ottawa
Edition of the very articulate and muck ranking "Frank" - the "Hill Times" an excellent source of news
based in Ottawa, has a staff of fine journalists, and attracts very profound and articulate comment.
Do not be discouraged if your letter does not appear - just keep writing - there are voices that must be heard. MacLeod


----------



## career_radio-checker (7 Aug 2005)

While people have been ticked off by Parrish's most recent comments, let's take a trip down memory lane and remember what criticism she faced from the media in the US. (maybe a hint why she hates American conservatives so much)

http://gprime.net/video.php/foxoncanada

Parrish we   you.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Aug 2005)

um I don't   and I would wager many others here don't as well.  Speak for yourself.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Duuh, because that's what they use in Afghanistan?
> 
> 
> Dari, Pashto, Urdu, Tajik, Uzkek and many other Central Asian languages are written using the Arabic alphabet.



Gack, my mistake - I seen that Mark said "Arabic script"; I was thinking that they were using the Arabic language, which threw me off.

Anyways, sorry for the hijack.


----------



## RangerRay (7 Aug 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> um I don't    and I would wager many others here don't as well.   Speak for yourself.



Ditto.

Someone should muzzle that mad cow...


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Aug 2005)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Ditto.
> 
> Someone should muzzle that mad cow...



Oh - I don't know.  Now that she's no longer a member of the governing party, her remarks are not likely to be mistaken as actually representing what the Government means to say.

With that chance of error removed, I find her mildly amusing - kinda' like reading the funny pages while drinking my coffee in the morning.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Aug 2005)

Oh I don't know.  She is given a greater platform then us mere mortals to spread her crap.  The general public are on a whole a bunch a sheep and if someone says something enough times they will take it for Gospel.


----------



## Roy Harding (8 Aug 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Oh I don't know.  She is given a greater platform then us mere mortals to spread her crap.  The general public are on a whole a bunch a sheep and if someone says something enough times they will take it for Gospel.



You're probably right.  However, only the voters in her riding can remove her from her greater platform.  As I'm not one of them, there's nothing I can do about it (except occasionally publically refute her more outrageous comments from my LESSER platform).

To restate my original sentiment - as she's no longer a member of the governing party, her remarks no longer carry much weight, ESPECIALLY in foreign countries (thank Christ).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Aug 2005)

"her remarks no longer carry much weight, ESPECIALLY in foreign countries (thank Christ)."

I definitely agree with you on that point.  However if she can still get camera time then she is more dangerous then I.  Like you said though at least she doesn't represent the government and ultimately us abroad.


----------



## Slim (8 Aug 2005)

All her voters have to realize is that she's not getting them anyplace with her verbal trype and thy'll remove her themselves...

Just get the msg across to them!

Slim


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Aug 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> All her voters have to realize is that she's not getting them anyplace with her verbal trype and thy'll remove her themselves...
> 
> Just get the msg across to them!
> 
> Slim



Saving another flip flop by the Lieberals, her constituents will also realise she's no longer very well connected and can't do much for them. They don't vote on ideals. As with most other voters, it's what are you going to do for me. When you can't, your discarded..............Good riddance.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Saving another flip flop by the Lieberals, her constituents will also realise she's no longer very well connected and can't do much for them. They don't vote on ideals. As with most other voters, it's what are you going to do for me. When you can't, your discarded..............Good riddance.



I suspect she will continue to have a presence as an "in demand" public speaker, and maybe a collumnist or pundit for the CBC and Toronto Star. "Pink Lloyd" Axeworthy still appears in the media and is reported on as if his pontifications were real news, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for her to fade away.


----------



## Slim (10 Aug 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I suspect she will continue to have a presence as an "in demand" public speaker, and maybe a collumnist or pundit for the CBC and Toronto Star. "Pink Lloyd" Axeworthy still appears in the media and is reported on as if his pontifications were real news, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for her to fade away.



That's depressing


----------



## wdewitt (14 Aug 2005)

Parrish comments on General Hiller colourfull langage is out of touch and does not represent the general feeling of Canadains support of our troops. General Hiller made no mistake that what type of business our force are to do and that some of our troops will probably will die.
The sad part she does not know appeasement is a sign of willness by our enemy's.
The problem is our politicans have no combat experience and lack real leadership in preventing wars.
This is shown by the sad state of affairs of our cash strap resources for men and updated equipment.
She has been a Harp seal for the Liberals and forget the reality of the present world of affairs. : :-[ :dontpanic:


----------



## career_radio-checker (14 Aug 2005)

some replies from the public

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace/hillier_afghans.html


----------



## aesop081 (14 Aug 2005)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> some replies from the public
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace/hillier_afghans.html



WOW !!  That was an education.  I'm either smarter than the average canadian or i have completely lost touch with mainstream soviety


----------



## Roy Harding (14 Aug 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> WOW !!  That was an education.  I'm either smarter than the average canadian or* i have completely lost touch with mainstream soviety*


 (emphasis added by Roy Harding)

Welcome to the club.

Having been a military guy (on and off) since 1977, I became a civilian about 1 1/2 years ago.  I KNOW I'm out of touch with mainstream society.  It's depressing at times, as I firmly believe that MY values are the correct ones (pig headedness runs in the family).  There are rare, special occasions, however, when I run across a "real" civvie (ie - never served in any military or paramilitary capacity) with whom I find myself in complete agreement - they're out there, you've just got to find them.


----------



## 48Highlander (14 Aug 2005)

My personal favourite:



> If we are not wanted in a country and people are prepared to kill us to get that point across, then why not just leave and go somewhere else like Africa, where we can really do some good.



 : : :

I guess she's forgotten about people killing us in Rwanda and Somalia.


----------



## Blakey (14 Aug 2005)

> some replies from the public


One word to the public.....*Naive*....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Aug 2005)

The sheep only know what the news and gov't tell them.


----------



## McG (14 Aug 2005)

For that that have not yet seen it,
View Carolyn Parrish's responce the the editorial here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33394.0.html

Comment on her responce here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33393.0.html


----------



## Strike (14 Aug 2005)

48th Highlander,

Wouldn't she be eating crow if we were to be sent to the Sudan.  Next to the Americans, we are the last people they want to see there.  Can you imagine the horrible result of that.


----------

