# Major embarrassment



## Armymedic (13 Aug 2004)

For crying out loud. 

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2004/08/13/fCanada109.raw.html

Major embarrassment 
Canadian soldiers frustrated at having to abandon Afghan trainees due to delay on Ottawa's part 
By Stephen Thorne / The Canadian Press

KABUL - In what they see as a blow to their credibility in Afghanistan, Canadian soldiers have to abandon the Afghan army battalion they trained for more than seven months, just as it deploys, because of a delay in Ottawa. 

Soldiers from Valcartier, Que., and, more recently, Edmonton have been nurturing bonds with the 4th Kandak, or battalion, of the Afghan National Army since last winter. 

They were to accompany their trainees on their first two-month deployment but had to inform them on Thursday - the day they were supposed to leave on a reconnaissance mission - that American troops would be going instead. 

"The past three or four days have probably been the most embarrassing I've ever had in my career," a veteran member of the Canadian embedded training team told The Canadian Press. "Our vehicle was packed and ready to go. 

"Trust is now gone," said the soldier, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The Americans are pissed off. The ANA guys were ecstatic that Canada was going with them; you could see it in their faces. Now they're crushed. 

"There is serious disappointment. These guys work off of respect, honour, loyalty and we're turning around and saying 'We don't respect you, we're no longer loyal.' A black mark is an understatement." 

Defence Minister Bill Graham was expected to sign an agreement last week committing Canadian army trainers to Afghanistan through 2008, the first long-term undertaking Ottawa has made to the war-ravaged country. 

The deal would also permit the Canadians to leave the NATO operations area around Kabul on extended deployments with their trainees. 

However, officials in the Prime Minister's Office and in the office of the deputy chief of defence staff have delayed the signing, forcing the 16-member training team to adopt a new battalion that will remain in Kabul through Afghanistan's Oct. 9 presidential election. 

Ironically, Kabul is expected to be more dangerous than the region to which they were to have deployed, soldiers said. 

After the reconnaissance mission, members of Edmonton's 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, were expecting to move with their trainees by Sunday. However, the battalion the Canadians have been training since last winter was turned over to a U.S. officer Thursday. 

It is at least the fourth time since last September that Canadians have been forced to abandon their trainees before a deployment, frustrating the Americans, who are in charge of the program, and forcing them - in this case at least - to make last-minute plans. 

The sergeant-major of the 4th Kandak, Asadullah Barkzai, was disappointed at the news, delivered by the new embedded training team commander, Maj. Brian Hynes of Comox, B.C., Thursday morning. 

"It is very bad news for us," said Barkzai. "They trained us very well and we would like to stay with them. Unfortunately, the Canadian government won't allow them to stay with us. 

"It hurt a lot. We were a team. We didn't think of them like Canadians and we are Afghan. We were one, working as a team. It is very hard for us that they are leaving." 

"There are obviously requests for Canadians to assist in training all over," said the new Canadian contingent commander, Col. Jim Ellis. "The senior leadership of the military and the government are looking at that. They have all the paperwork right now. 

"We should hear one way or the other later on. However, it doesn't mean our commitment to the forces here in town is going to change. It's a bit tough for our guys because they've taken their troops to this point." 

Small groups of Canadian soldiers have been embedded with Afghan and U.S. troops since last fall, training two battalions. Several Canadian-trained ANA units have since been involved in heavy fighting south of Kabul. 

"The whole team was very frustrated" by previous roadblocks to missions with the trainees, Maj. Sylvain Rheaume, the Quebec-based officer who commanded the training group for six months, said last week. 

"We have trained these soldiers to do a job and when it was time to do the real stuff, we were not allowed to be with them. We developed a really good relationship and trust and it was very, very difficult to let them go." 

The long-awaited deal with the U.S. military and Afghan government would "repackage and redefine a whole new mandate custom-made for this work," Col. Alain Tremblay, Ellis's predecessor, said July 27. 

Tremblay said training a national army and breaking the 1,400-year dominance of Afghanistan's warlord culture is probably the most critical element of the country's reconstruction. 

"No central government will be able to survive in such an environment without the proper institutions - the judicial, the military," he said. 

"It took us six to eight months to . . . convince Ottawa of the strategic value and return investment of getting into that initiative." 

Until now, Canada's role in the U.S.-led training program has been ad hoc, based solely on Ottawa's relatively short-term commitments to NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Kabul. 

However, the program, which aims to train the first 70,000 ANA troops, is independent from NATO and its Canadian Operation Athena. Called Operation Archer, it is only the second time Canada has been involved in large-scale training of a foreign military force; Sierra Leone was the other. 

"It's not a short-term commitment," Tremblay said. "It takes a long time to bring them to a proper and decent level of efficiency as a modern military force. 

"You cannot think that you can be playing at this on a six-month to six-month basis. It cannot work that way." 

Just under 15,000 soldiers are so far enrolled with the Afghan National Army, which is slowly shoring up its numbers as the country's disarmament, demobilization and reintegration program retires regional militias. 


Maybe it won't matter because, in a yr, Canada won't touch Afghanistan again with a 10 foot pole?  :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Aug 2004)

PLUMP!...the sound of the ball being dropped!


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2004)

A ball of what?

 :threat:

GW


----------



## scm77 (14 Aug 2004)

> Small groups of Canadian soldiers have been embedded with Afghan and U.S. troops since last fall, training two battalions. Several Canadian-trained ANA units have since been involved in heavy fighting south of Kabul.



Does anyone think this has something to do with why they keep having to leave them before deployments?  Ottawa doesn't want people to think our soldeirs actually shoot people?


----------



## Scott (14 Aug 2004)

But Canadian soldiers aren't supposed to shoot anyone *MAJOR SARCASM*


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (14 Aug 2004)

I knew a Major Embarrassment once but he was promoted to Lcol. shortly after...


----------



## Armymedic (14 Aug 2004)

OLD SCHOOL said:
			
		

> I knew a Major Embarrassment once but he was promoted to Lcol. shortly after...



Darn...I guess that one was just too good to pass up.

But if the Gov't keeps going, Embarrassment may be a General soon.


----------



## digital (15 Aug 2004)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Darn...I guess that one was just too good to pass up.
> 
> But if the Gov't keeps going, Embarrassment may be a General soon.



out of curiosity, just how many of our Govt (LIBERALs speficically) bureaucrats actually have operations exp or any kind of Military exp at all for that matter? seems like the pen-pushers in thier comfy ottawa offices just discuss and dance around issues while its our TROOPS that suffer the consequences. how long has this been going on and  for how much longer? 


side note: we know the conservatives arent good for canada (in terms of social policies and perhaps other areas) but at least we know they'd take care of our boys with a sensible defence budget!!!


----------



## Redeye (15 Aug 2004)

digital said:
			
		

> out of curiosity, just how many of our Govt (LIBERALs speficically) bureaucrats actually have operations exp or any kind of Military exp at all for that matter? seems like the pen-pushers in thier comfy ottawa offices just discuss and dance around issues while its our TROOPS that suffer the consequences. how long has this been going on and   for how much longer?
> 
> 
> side note: we know the conservatives arent good for canada (in terms of social policies and perhaps other areas) but at least we know they'd take care of our boys with a sensible defence budget!!!



We know they would?  No we don't.  They might bluster about it, but that means nothing.  At the end of the day they have to run a more or less balanced budget or face electoral wrath, and as sad as it might be for us, Defence spending is not something that gets a priority treatment from any party, because they all have things more important to the broader electorate to spend money on.

I highly doubt a Conservative government in the 90s would have done anything different from what Chretien's Liberal government did.


----------



## scm77 (15 Aug 2004)

I agree.  They can say that they want to increase the defense budget and get all kinds of new stuff.  But bottom line is ALL politicians lie.  I'm sure that the conservatives wouldn't lie as much as the liberals when it comes to defense, but unfortunately harper is too much like Bush for Canadian voters. :


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Aug 2004)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I highly doubt a Conservative government in the 90s would have done anything different from what Chretien's Liberal government did.



I disagree completely....

The Liberal Party at its base is Anti-Military.   The Conservative Party is at worst Neutral....

The Liberal Party loves big bureaucracy.   The Conservative Party is much more pro-business and therefore pro-efficiency.

Obvious Differences:
Sea Kings would have long ago have been replaced with EH-101 Merlins.
The numbers balance between NDHQ and Front Line Personnel would've been different.
Funding for Operations would've been in addition to the regular budget allowing regular, scheduled re-investment.
We would have 2 less Challengers....

Extrapolated Differences:
With better eqiupment and a government commitment, I would argue recruiting would've been easier.
We would've likely had a strategic Air-to-Air Refueling Capability.
We likely would've upgraded or replaced our C-130's by now.
JSS likely would've been at least in construction by now.
etc.
etc.

Bottom Line:   Don't kid yourself, the Liberal Party is a cancer on the Canadian Military and always will be due
to its underlying Chamberlain-like mentality....



Matthew.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Aug 2004)

digital said:
			
		

> side note: we know the conservatives arent good for canada (in terms of social policies and perhaps other areas)



Dumbest statement of the day award goes to...


----------



## Lance Wiebe (17 Aug 2004)

> Dumbest statement of the day award goes to...



I concur......


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2004)

Ditto...

Nicely summed-up Blackshirt.


----------



## Highland Laddie (17 Aug 2004)

digital said:
			
		

> out of curiosity, just how many of our Govt (LIBERALs speficically) bureaucrats actually have operations exp or any kind of Military exp at all for that matter? seems like the pen-pushers in thier comfy ottawa offices just discuss and dance around issues while its our TROOPS that suffer the consequences. how long has this been going on and   for how much longer?



Can't speak for the bureaucrats, but I believe the only current MP with any military experience is the new Conservative party defence critic, who I believe is an ex-general or LCol.

Here's an idea for proper defence spending and equipment: pass a law requiring ALL cabinet ministers (PM included) and senior bureaucrats in DND to spend two weeks per year in what ever third-world crap hole that they have sent the CF too. A few foot patrols 'walking point' or in an ILTIS in Kabul may rapidly change some people's perspective on defence matters ;D


----------



## Torlyn (17 Aug 2004)

Dear lord, if you did that, you might actually affect some change...  I thought the modus operandi of the federal government, "see no evil, hear no evil, do no good".  If you actually put them in a situation where they got to be on the receiving end of the policies they dictate from Mount Sussex, we might have a functional government...  Isn't that against our constitution??  ;-)

B.N.S.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2004)

You may have to add another name to the list.   IIRC it was reported elsewhere that Uncle Bill Graham used to was a "Snotty" in the RCN around about 1957.   Not quite current Iltis service but better than most.

Cheers


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Aug 2004)

>we know the conservatives arent good for canada (in terms of social policies and perhaps other areas

Really?  How do we know the "social policies and other areas" we have really are good for Canada in the long term, as opposed to selected Canadians in the short term?


----------



## KevinB (18 Aug 2004)

I know several of the guys involved in the training program - talk about a kick in the nutz...

They are embarrassed and upset


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Aug 2004)

Highland Laddie said:
			
		

> Here's an idea for proper defence spending and equipment: pass a law requiring ALL cabinet ministers (PM included) and senior bureaucrats in DND to spend two weeks per year in what ever third-world crap hole that they have sent the CF too. A few foot patrols 'walking point' or in an ILTIS in Kabul may rapidly change some people's perspective on defence matters ;D



That is just brilliant.

Huge kudos on that idea.  I'm going to send it to the Conservative Defence Critic tonight....



Matthew.


----------



## CdnGalaGal (24 Aug 2004)

I don't know if that would help... 

They might just treat it like a vacation... Paid accomodations made cushy for their benefit, souvenirs to bring home to the kids, and free tours courtesy of frontline CF personnel who are required to gloss over their ways of speech so that they don't offend these high-ranking officials with the actual story... 

I wonder how much of the "real" conditions these politicians would actually experience or even UNDERSTAND. They're civies, not military. Unless they had a definite interest and solid background in military matters, it might just be another money-wasting expedition...

As debatable as this may be, the job of understanding what's going on is that of the Generals. And (I don't know much about govt matters) they should be the ones making the decisions.... not politicians. <sighs> 

Only so much money to go around and too many ways to allocate the funds...   :-\


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Aug 2004)

So all cabinet ministers should be qualified airline pilots and railroad engineers (cause they might need to vote on bills put forth by the transport minister), own their own dories (fisheries), have some degree of medical training (public health), have degrees in science and commerce, and have military experience including a six month tour overseas.  

Anything else?  :


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Aug 2004)

CJ said:
			
		

> As debatable as this may be, the job of understanding what's going on is that of the Generals. And (I don't know much about govt matters) they should be the ones making the decisions.... not politicians. <sighs>



Exactly right.

And the job of the civilian bureaucracy, in turn, is to listen to the generals and support them _as far as is practicable_.


----------



## CdnGalaGal (24 Aug 2004)

"So all cabinet ministers should be qualified airline pilots and railroad engineers (cause they might need to vote on bills put forth by the transport minister), own their own dories (fisheries), have some degree of medical training (public health), have degrees in science and commerce, and have military experience including a six month tour overseas. "

<lol> not to THAT extent...



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> And the job of the civilian bureaucracy, in turn, is to listen to the generals and support them _as far as is practicable_.



Oh, for sure... We wouldn't want a little band of Hitlers running around making all the decisions on resource allocation, afterall.   I'd say, though, that the Generals should have a little more say than they currently do regarding the decisions made by the Canadian government WRT military issues. Don't ask me how much MORE say they should have... On that, I pass the buck... I've got no clue...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (24 Aug 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> So all cabinet ministers should be qualified airline pilots and railroad engineers (cause they might need to vote on bills put forth by the transport minister), own their own dories (fisheries), have some degree of medical training (public health), have degrees in science and commerce, and have military experience including a six month tour overseas.
> 
> Anything else?   :



Was it not you just yesterday that pretty much told me I was unable to provide a worthwhile opinion because I'd never been in NDHQ???   Under the logic that specific experience is an absolute prerequisite to enlightenment how on bloody earth can you now argue that exposing our politicians to real-world military situations can somehow be a bad idea?

More importantly, does your inconsistant logic even matter to you, or are you just fixated on taking shots at others in an attempt to somehow boost your own ego?



Matthew.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Aug 2004)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Was it not you just yesterday that pretty much told me I was unable to provide a worthwhile opinion because I'd never been in NDHQ???  Under the logic that specific experience is an absolute prerequisite to enlightenment how on bloody earth can you now argue that exposing our politicians to real-world military situations can somehow be a bad idea?
> 
> More importantly, does your inconsistant logic even matter to you, or are you just fixated on taking shots at others in an attempt to somehow boost your own ego?
> 
> ...



I don't see any inherent lapses in logic, Matthew, but if you are really determined to pick a fight, keep mouthing off.  I won't warn you again about your tone, and in fact, you just got off Verbal Warning Status if I remember correctly.

Canada is run by civilians, that's the way the system works.  As pointed out, sending MPs out to do 6 month tours would be a huge investment of money for no apparent gain.  The lapse in YOUR logic is that you seem to think National Defence is the only issue important to Canadians.  It's not.  It's down the list. Way down the list.  So you are suggesting that all cabinet ministers receive 6 months of indoctrination to help them better understand one single portfolio out of dozens.  And while they're living in Afghanistan, how exactly are they learning about fisheries, health care, the cattle industry, or any of the other things they need to know about to run the country?

Plus, you haven't proven that giving them military experience (if you call it that) would help them one iota in making better decisions.  I don't see that sleeping under canvas in Afghanistan will make them better appreciate their responsibilities.  It might make them better understand that Canadian soldiers live in harsh conditions.  Guess what, so do Newfoundland fisherman, seismic crews up in the Arctic, or roughnecks out on the wells.  So what?  What possible good would it do?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (25 Aug 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I don't see any inherent lapses in logic, Matthew, but if you are really determined to pick a fight, keep mouthing off.   I won't warn you again about your tone, and in fact, you just got off Verbal Warning Status if I remember correctly.
> 
> Canada is run by civilians, that's the way the system works.   As pointed out, sending MPs out to do 6 month tours would be a huge investment of money for no apparent gain.   The lapse in YOUR logic is that you seem to think National Defence is the only issue important to Canadians.   It's not.   It's down the list. Way down the list.   So you are suggesting that all cabinet ministers receive 6 months of indoctrination to help them better understand one single portfolio out of dozens.   And while they're living in Afghanistan, how exactly are they learning about fisheries, health care, the cattle industry, or any of the other things they need to know about to run the country?
> 
> Plus, you haven't proven that giving them military experience (if you call it that) would help them one iota in making better decisions.   I don't see that sleeping under canvas in Afghanistan will make them better appreciate their responsibilities.   It might make them better understand that Canadian soldiers live in harsh conditions.   Guess what, so do Newfoundland fisherman, seismic crews up in the Arctic, or roughnecks out on the wells.   So what?   What possible good would it do?



To begin, I don't believe I've ever been on Verbal Warning Status before, but you can correct me if I'm wrong...

In regards to your post, this is the most polite you've been to me in any dialogue to date, and I just want to say thank you.

In regards to your comment that six months is unreasonable, I agree with you.   However, I would contend that putting
Cabinet Ministers out in the field is not only appropriate but essential considering the widening divide between the idealist
academics with padded expense accounts and chaffeured cars in government and the infantrymen in Kabul driving in open
cockpit ILTIS praying another suicide bomber doesn't jump in their lap while worrying about kids they haven't seen in 
four months.

Bottom Line:   There is a disconnect between the fact that we are asking soldiers, sailors and airmen to make the ultimate
sacrifice in carrying out the government's foreign policy, but those in government are so isolated they cannot even relate
to the men making that sacrifice.   How does the proverb go: "Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes."

Well in this case if you want Cabinet Ministers and MP's in general to understand the plight of our Armed Forces, the only
way to do that is to get them to see worst parts from a soldiers vantage point.

Take them on a tour of Kabul in an Iltis.
Take them on an ASuW Patrol in a Sea King.
Take them on a fisheries tour in Victoria-class Submarine.
Take them to a Reserve Training Session in the front of an MLVW and tell them the build-date.
Take them to Bosnia and let them watch an Aardvark clear mines from close enough they can feel the explosion.

Let them feel the fear.

Let them see the stoicism our men and women carry themselves with regardless of that fear.

You take those decisionmakers out for one year and put them through those experiences and pacificist Liberals or not, 
they will step up when it's budget time.   

You don't take the decisionmakers out and we get 1 or 2 more Liberal or NDP Governments and I think you may
have gone past the precipis at which point recovery is no longer an option.

I'll look forward to your response Michael....



Matthew.     

P.S.   On the priorities front, Canadians don't believe the military is important because our political leadership has failed
to explain why it is important.   Ignorance plus poor leadership is a deadly combination....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Aug 2004)

Well I've been told that after the Minister of Defence visited the troops in Afganistan during Roto 0 during a major sand storm he soon uped the hardship allowance which he had previously dragged his feet on.  I think it seems to make sense for members of parliment to have some experience in the postion they are in.  A former teacher in charge of education, lawyer/judge in charge of justice, farmer in charge of agriculture etc.  However you'd be hard pressed to find many military members in the gov't.  And no I don't think Jacques Villeneuve should be in charge of the ministry of transport.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (25 Aug 2004)

Who says politicians don't understand the military?  The help us remember the sacrifice of the men at Vichy Ridge ... the D-Day invasion of the beaches of Norway ...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Aug 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> Well I've been told that after the Minister of Defence visited the troops in Afganistan during Roto 0 during a major sand storm he soon uped the hardship allowance which he had previously dragged his feet on.   I think it seems to make sense for members of parliment to have some experience in the postion they are in.   A former teacher in charge of education, lawyer/judge in charge of justice, farmer in charge of agriculture etc.   However you'd be hard pressed to find many military members in the gov't.   And no I don't think Jacques Villeneuve should be in charge of the ministry of transport.



Looking at your example, I think we can see that it's the ministers' job to know - not the entire cabinet.  I would say that the Minister's visit paid dividends and that the system worked as it was supposed to.  He went, saw for himself, and made a good definsible decision.  The suggestion was made here that the entire cabinet should have military experience, which is a silly notion, and as you suggest, optimally you would have cabinet assignments filled with experienced people from those areas they are expected to govern.  I wouldn't even consider this a prerequisite, just a "nice to have".

If the cabinet works as it supposed to, they will listen to the MND's advice and weigh their options re: national policy accordingly.  Again, we really have little idea of what goes on in cabinet discussions.  I will be the first to admit that spending a million dollars on a covered walkway for MPs from the parkade to the Parliament buildings seemed a little much, and there are plenty of examples of things like that which stick in the craw.  However, it is far easier to complain than to try and see the viewpoint of the other side.

Canadians have chosen to make health care a larger priority than defence.  Calling the politicians idiots or demanding they serve overseas tours in order to redress that apparent "problem" will not make average Canadians want health care less or a stronger military more.  Nor will all the complaining on this board.  At worst, it will only futher alienate average civilians from the military, if they see a lot of senseless complaining from our end, and I wouldn't blame them.  

I would suggest that reasoned arguments are the best weapon in our arsenal, along with spokespersons like General Mackenzie, for as little as that has done.  The other options are simply to complain, or at worst stage a military coup and then all your ministers would have that requisite military experience some of you seem to feel is necessary.  I wouldn't want to live under a military dictatorship - can anyone name one anywhere in the world throughout history in which human rights were respected as much as they are in our current system of government here in Canada?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Aug 2004)

Sorry I missed the part where the argument was made that the whole cabinet should have military experience.   I agree that is unnecessary, however I still believe having someone in a ministers position having some experience like I pointed out couldn't hurt.   I agree health care should be number one but defense should be a very close 2nd (I'm sure its not though).


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Aug 2004)

Health care, when you get down to first principles, is not a duty of government.  It is merely "nice to have".  External and internal security (ie. defence and justice) are the two pre-eminent responsibilities of federal government.  If those matters are inadequately provided for, government is negligent.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Aug 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Health care, when you get down to first principles, is not a duty of government.   It is merely "nice to have".   External and internal security (ie. defence and justice) are the two pre-eminent responsibilities of federal government.   If those matters are inadequately provided for, government is negligent.



You say that from the viewpoint of a small "c" conservative.  The majority of people in this country, however, are small "l" liberals.  In other words - tell it to the lard asses who eat themselves to death with fried foods, smoke all their lives, drink their livers rotten, then demand free treatment for cancer, dialysis, etc. paid for by the government (who gets their money from us, the taxpayers.)   Or the head injured who ride bicycles, motorcycles and skateboards without helmets.  Etc.

Unfortunately, your view (and mine) re: government and health care is in the minority and will very likely be so for a long time, barring a major catastrophe like an armed invasion or massive terrorist attack on either Canadian nationals or Canadian soil.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Aug 2004)

You want to see "major embarrassment"?, here it is. This piece of trash is at it again and worst, I was listening to the CBC radio news and she denied that she said this until the reporter said he had it on tape and then she said " I meant it in a different context.        This "thing" has got to go.

OTTAWA â â€ Some Liberal MPs are banking on the U.S. presidential election this fall to help defuse a looming decision over joining the continental missile shield program.

And at least one outspoken backbencher says Canada must avoid joining what she calls "a coalition of the idiots" promoting the space-based defensive shield.

The issue promises to be one the hottest this autumn in a divided House of Commons under Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberals.

Carolyn Parrish, the Toronto-area MP with a history of anti-American comments, fanned the flames today during a break from a Liberal caucus meeting.

"We are not joining the coalition of the idiots," Parrish said at a small anti-missile-defence rally outside the Parliament buildings.

"We should be joining the coalition of the wise."

Parrish got into hot water last year for publicly muttering: ``Damn Americans, I hate the bastards." Asked to clarify her latest outburst, she denied saying Americans are idiots and asked media not to air the comments.

The prime minister was not amused.

"This is a very, very


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Aug 2004)

Another version...


Reuters) - It was damned bastards last year, "idiots" this year.

Canadian Member of Parliament Carolyn Parrish had said she hated "damned Americans" and called them bastards in the run-up to the Iraq war. She found a new moniker, idiots, on Wednesday in discussing the planned U.S. missile defense system.

"We are not joining the coalition of the idiots. We are joining the coalition of the wise," the Liberal legislator told a small group of demonstrators.

Parrish, who had to apologize for her "bastards" remarks last year, at first denied using the term idiots, and when reporters pointed out they had her remarks on tape, she said: "I don't mean Americans are idiots."

"The world respects Canada. If we were to join this then it will be giving credibility to what they're doing," she said.

Parrish then begged reporters not to use the remarks: "Please guys don't put that on tape," she said. "I already got into trouble once.... Really, please, I've had enough trouble."

The top spokeswoman for former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Francoise Ducros, had to resign in 2002 for calling President George W. Bush a moron.

Chretien's successor, Prime Minister Paul Martin, has pledged to put relations with Canada's largest trading partner on a warmer footing


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Aug 2004)

I think Martin is at least smart enough to know where his bread is buttered.  I hope he throws her out on her ass.

What is the opinion among board members re: Canadian participation in SDI?  I think it certainly couldn't do us any harm to say the very least.


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Aug 2004)

Personally, I have few problems with the whole concept outside of the fact that $0 Canadian defence dollars should go into it. My concerns are very narrow, and have nothing to do with the merits of the system.  I am more interested in the NAFTA implications re: technology transfers between US and Canadian companies. If the NDP manage to somehow scuttle the deal after we sign on, Canadian taxpayers could be on the hook for damages for loss of profit expectation if Canadian companies are subsequently barred from completing contracts they have obtained. And those profit expectations are substantial ... where will the money come from> why, the defence budget of course!!

On the whole, the Canadian hi tech industry could potentially make some huge gains in knowledge, and if for no other reason, I support that outcome!!


----------

