# Responses to Irresponsible Opposition



## ruxted (4 Aug 2006)

Please post all replies to the Irresponsible Opposition Editorial here.


----------



## GAP (4 Aug 2006)

As correct as the opinion piece is, I am as probably as correct when I say that the opposition parties have no interest in changing anything that does not cater to their narrow minded voting block's opinion. The opposition is not interested in Canadians, only those who vote for them.


----------



## sleeman (4 Aug 2006)

Great editorial!

It’s a real shame to see how complacent and spineless a lot of my countrymen have become.  Being strong and free comes at a cost.  These people may not realize it now, but the cost will be much higher later if we do not act now and curtail this threat to our way of life as we know it.  These extremist would like nothing better then for us to pull out of Afstan.  They would see this as a sign of weakness and it would ultimately encourage them to bring the fight to us, here in Canada, on our home soil.  Now what would all these whiners say?  That our government failed to protect us?  

Just as you can only help the ones that want to help themselves, you can only negotiate and rationalize with people who are capable of seeing and understanding a different point of view.  IMHO, Islamic extremist are incapable of such thing.  They are bent on the destruction of everything and everyone that have a different view then their own.

On another note…  All this I hear about Canada being a peacekeeping country really rubs me the wrong way.  As important as our peacekeeping missions are, let’s not forget which country instilled the fear of god in the enemy troops during both World Wars.  Canada has a rich military history, one filled with great victories over its foes, one that defined us as a nation.  

I for one am proud to be a Canadian and am in full support of the mission and our troops fighting for our freedom.

My 0.02.


----------



## LeonTheNeon (4 Aug 2006)

During WW2, the general attitude of Canadians was that not enough was being done for the war effort.  The Canadian people even voted in overwhelmingly in favour of keeping conscription for overseas service in 1941.  There seemed to be an acknowledgement that despite the bitterness of war Hitler and the Nazi regime had to be stopped.

Much of the same can be said for the Canadians during the Korean war.

Why is it that people cannot see that extreme fundamentalist Islamics are a threat that have to be stopped and the cost of stopping them is war?  While we're at it we have a great opportunity to help developing nations, like Afghanistan.  What is so fundamentally different between people today and those in the 40s, 50s and 60s?  Is it because the threat isn't "real" enough?  Because the Taliban, Al Qaeda and their ilk don't have standing armies?  They don't have tanks and planes?  Is it because they aren't conquerors?  If they're not occupying land they aren't a threat?  

Is it because people now can see more of the atrocities of war and it repulses them?  In WW2 civilians died, but you didn't have the images on the 6 o'clock news.  Now you can see the destroyed bridges, hospitals, the lives shattered.  Also, it seems that the media makes a big deal out of a half dozen dead civilians.  And it isn't to say that it isn't important, but the spin on it seems to reek of "We've done a horrible thing, and we're evil and bad."  Is part of it western Christian guilt?

I wish I had the answers and could help people understand, that this threat is real, and the price for failing to answer it I fear will be far higher then paying the price now.

Great editorial in any event.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Aug 2006)

LeonTheNeon said:
			
		

> Why is it that people cannot see that extreme fundamentalist Islamics are a threat that have to be stopped and the cost of stopping them is war?



Because for decades Canadians have seen themselves as the tolerant, nice guys of the planet.  The chummy next door neighbor that will always lend out his lawnmower, and still give you a beer when you bring it back with no gas.  We have been so hung up on the idea of the "cultural mosaic" and "tolerance" that it has swung all the way over to an overwhelming sense of "white mans guilt".  Now, if anybody offers an opinion about anything that stems from another country you are drilled with "ethnocentric" and even more horrifying "racist".  Political correctness has run amok, and is an effective gag on open dialogue.  The cumulative effect is the erosion of common sense.  

Starting with Pierre Trudeau ( at least that is for my conscious memory, I leave it open for prior to him), the Liberals set about picking apart the effectiveness and credibility of the CF.  Every chance they got they went cheap on the soldiers, or reneged on promises that indicated that things would get better.  So for years, Canada didn't see anything dynamic from it's men except for snow removal and sand bagging.  Not to say that the CF wasn't spinning gold out of sh*t with what it had been given.  I can't believe the loyalty and dedication of members that stuck it out through the 80's.  Once the Wall came down, the Liberals decided that the world was okay and we didn't need to have much of any sort of military.  

September 11 came, and changed everything.  Slowly but surely, Canadians are coming to the realization that they can't be fence sitters.  Neutral nice guys won't carry the day, because the bad guys aren't nicely lined up grey uniforms and tanks, or hordes of red stars and missiles.  The enemy now is an idea, one that says "everyone who doesn't believe this idea is cursed by God, and should die".  Now, Joe Canadian hears that and says "Hey, buddy!  Take it easy.  I got nothin' against you.  We can all get along" and figures "If I don't piss them off, they'll leave us alone".  Couple this attitude with the steady stream of anti-American rhetoric that our media promotes, which makes it easy to think "well, the Americans kinda brought this on to themselves when they went to Iraq".  Most people just don't get the fact that just our filthy, alcohol drinking, non east praying, women driving around with educations, music and dancing infidel culture is reason enough for them to kill us.  The culture of hatred and death is so foreign and removed from how most of us were raised, it is easy to tell yourself "aw, nobody thinks like that.  Maybe they just want us to build a hospital or something".  

That is why the NDP and the Liberals can ply on this collective thinking and sew the seeds of dissension.  They don't give a rats a$$ about the war in Afghanistan.  They just are trying desperately to discredit Mr. Harper, who has thus far been very un-politician like in his decisive leadership.  They are terrified to death about what will happen in the next election, and need to ply on the old tried and true hooks:  we're nicer than that, we aren't like the Americans, someone else needs help.  It probably makes sense to them to try to get people to not trust the government, but I think in psychology they call that "projection".  

Just remember:  the Liberals and the NDP have not been interested in the CF at any point in the last 30-odd years.  One should question why they have such an interest now.  And you need not get hung up on the idea that it's "for the boys".


----------



## Gunnar (4 Aug 2006)

Excellent post, Zipperhead_cop!  

+1


----------



## George Wallace (4 Aug 2006)

zipperhead_cop

That was worth framing.


----------



## CanadaPhil (4 Aug 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Political correctness has run amok, and is an effective gag on open dialogue.  The cumulative effect is the erosion of common sense.



+1


----------



## Shadowhawk (4 Aug 2006)

:cheers:

I'm with you zipperhead_cop. I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Aug 2006)

E-Z boys, y'all makin' me blush. ;D


----------



## TMM (5 Aug 2006)

Zip, don't hold back now - tell us how you really feel!


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2006)

The opposition is either not paying attention to this (bad), ignoring it (worse) or simply don't care (worst of all). This is yet another example of 4GW tactics being deployed against us.

http://www.civitatensis.ca/archives/2006/08/04/1444



> *Digging up Dead Children to Bury Israel*
> 
> I had missed this story from a couple of days ago, but I am writing this post to gather some of the links and discussion for myself. If you were not aware of these developments, *I suggest you follow the links and read carefully, eyes wide open.*
> 
> ...


----------



## FastEddy (5 Aug 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Because for decades Canadians have seen themselves as the tolerant, nice guys of the planet.





Excellent Post, Well Written and " So ! So ! True ".


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Aug 2006)

Z-C for president of Ruxtedistan!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2006)

It looks like the *Ruxted Editor* is in good company – if you believe that the _Globe and Mail_ tries to be centrist (balanced? responsible?) in its editorial positions.

This editorial is from today’s _Globe and Mail_ and is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060805.EDOSA15/TPStory/Opinion/editorials 


> Dosanjh has it wrong about the Afghan task
> 
> Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh says Canada's mission in Afghanistan should be refocused. "This has become almost totally a combat mission, and that was not the intention," he said Thursday after four Canadians were killed.
> 
> ...



The _Good Grey Globe_ decided to confine itself to Ujjal Dosanjh and ignored the even nuttier musings of NDP defence critic Dawn Black – maybe the need to stay with less than 500 words was the main factor (that’s about the limit for a paper that wants to put three editorials on one side of one page).  Less explicably it failed to add one sentence calling on Opposition Leader Bill Graham to fire Dosanjh for being stupid.

We now need the _centrist_ (Liberal friendly, according to some here on Army.ca) _Globe and Mail_ and _Bell Canada_* to take up the case it has made in last three paragraphs and inform, indeed educate the Canadian public.

----------
* Which also has a major interest in CTV and soon in the CHUM group of companies (in addition to controlling the _Globe and Mail_.


----------



## HDE (5 Aug 2006)

I find it intriguing, and embarrassing,  watching the Liberals try and distance themselves from the fallout of the decisions they made in committing the CF to Afghanistan.  Every day it seems Dosanjh is coming out with a more bizarre interpretation of what the plan was.  If I forgot how miserably the Libs treated the CF I'd almost feel sorry for the little fella :'(


----------



## Echo9 (6 Aug 2006)

I find it interesting how parties of the left have seemingly decided to take so many steps on the road to oblivion.  If you look at the Democrats in the US, Liberals/ NDP here (Ignatieff excepted- he may be the saviour of that party), Labour in Oz/ Britain- they all look at the world through the lens of opposing responsible leadership.  Heck, in the case of the British labour party, they're opposing their own leader.

It's as if they've forgotten that the true enemies of the West are the foreign threats, not their democratic opponents with whom they contest elections.  I read an interesting interview between Hugh Hewitt and Marty Peretz the other day.  For those who don't know him, Peretz is the editor of the New Republic, which is one of the leading old line liberal magazines in the US, and Peretz is a strong supporter of Democrats.  When Hewitt asked him if he was looking forward to a Democratic takeover of congress, his only answer was that he found the prospective committee chairmen to be a disturbing bunch.  He couldn't quite side with Republicans, but he clearly thought that his side had lost its way.

I think that, at its root, the degradations of moral equivalency have led the left to cease to be able think critically.  There are exceptions (see my Ignatieff comment above), but I think that they really only prove the rule.


----------



## paracowboy (6 Aug 2006)

Echo9 said:
			
		

> I find it interesting how parties of the left have seemingly decided to take so many steps on the road to oblivion.  If you look at the Democrats in the US, Liberals/ NDP here (Ignatieff excepted- he may be the saviour of that party), Labour in Oz/ Britain- they all look at the world through the lens of opposing responsible leadership.  Heck, in the case of the British labour party, they're opposing their own leader.
> 
> It's as if they've forgotten that the true enemies of the West are the foreign threats, not their democratic opponents with whom they contest elections.  I read an interesting interview between Hugh Hewitt and Marty Peretz the other day.  For those who don't know him, Peretz is the editor of the New Republic, which is one of the leading old line liberal magazines in the US, and Peretz is a strong supporter of Democrats.  When Hewitt asked him if he was looking forward to a Democratic takeover of congress, his only answer was that he found the prospective committee chairmen to be a disturbing bunch.  He couldn't quite side with Republicans, but he clearly thought that his side had lost its way.
> 
> I think that, at its root, the degradations of moral equivalency have led the left to cease to be able think critically.  There are exceptions (see my Ignatieff comment above), but I think that they really only prove the rule.


infighting has become more important than preserving the nation. One takes a look at Byzantium in the later years, and one fears greatly.


----------



## exsemjingo (19 Aug 2006)

The editorial has said it all.  That anyone in the military would consider voting for anyone other than the Conservative party is dumbfounding at best, and infuriating at worst.  As far as the Conservatives only having a minority government, well, lets just say we fight for the principle of democracy and not the particular results of it.


----------



## Eland (2 Sep 2006)

The Liberal and NDP positions on the Afghanistan mission are completely unsurprising. The Liberal stance is quite hypocritical, considering that the party was the one that committed Canada to the mission in the first place. While at work today, I was listening to a radio phone-in show called Adler Online. Jack Layton was interviewed, as were Don Cherry and MGen Lewis MacKenzie. Layton's position was totally 
ludicrous, arguing that the mission isn't "the right one for Canada". 

Why isn't it the right one, Jack? As far as I can see, Canadian troops are acquitting themselves extremely well in Afghanistan, while sustaining comparatively few casualties. The tactical situation there, as nearly as this civilian can tell, is nowhere near being the quagmire the leftist media at home are saying it is. You know that Canadian troops are really doing their jobs well when Taliban elements are coming forward offering to lay down their arms rather than be caught in firefights where death and large-scale losses are pretty much certain even though they outnumber the Canadians.

Layton is still trying to keep alive that old Canadian shibboleth of peacekeeping, desperate to find a way to help the NDP somehow become relevant in Canadian politics. Peacekeeping is a dead horse, as evidenced by the large numbers of UN member states who are (wisely) not contributing troops to manage the fragile cease-fire zone in Lebanon. Layton has also conflated the current mission with peacekeeping, which it is definitely not. 

Layton also stated that the mission suffers from several problems - no clearly defined mission, no 'exit strategy' and mission creep.
Mr. Layton would do well to realize that the mission is in fact clearly defined:

1. Support the creation of a democratically elected government and maintain that government until such time as it can govern effectively
2. Provide humanitarian aid and rebuild Afghanistan's provinces so that (1) above is better facilitated and economic and political stability is fostered
3. Protect the humanitarian aid efforts underway
4. Engage in counterinsurgency ops to prevent Taliban and other factions from interfering with the processes described in (1) (2) and (3).

Because of the Taliban's politico-religious structure which seeks to achieve its aims through military and terrorist operations, it has become necessary for NATO forces in the region to close with and destroy Taliban elements. It would appear that it is the regrettable but necessary job of killing Taliban soldiers that Layton most objects to, not the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan per se. Unfortunately for Mr. Layton, the Taliban are not rational actors and are not capable of responding to reason, diplomacy or non-violent rapprochement, no matter how much he wishes otherwise.

What Mr. Layton does not realize is that NATO troops are in Afghanistan for another very salient and important reason. They are trying to prevent radical Islamic ideologies from spreading to their home countries. They do not want to see their citizens further subjected to terrorist acts which have the goal of rendering these same citizens subject to universal sharia law. The fighting in Afghanistan is about freedom, Mr. Layton. Yours, mine, your neighbour's, the Afghanis' and the entire world's freedom. If Canadian troops do not belong in Afghanistan, and we're only there to satisfy US policy dictates, then why have so many NATO countries, especially those with ideological differences with the US, sent forces there?

As for the lack of an exit strategy, I would like Mr. Layton to name one war in history where an exit strategy was devised. Prosecuting a war is not a process where you go meet the enemy, do x, y, and z and expect that you can simply exit. War is often a protracted business, and does not lend itself well to arbitrary termination for political or ideological reasons. What usually happens is the enemy is defeated and cannot continue fighting, or it surrenders to reduce loss of life or to attempt to preserve a desired geopolitical state of being, or the side attempting to defeat the enemy loses. 

Layton hopes that by pulling Canadian troops out he can minimize civilian casualties and suffering. But the reduction in casualties is simply traded for other forms of suffering - such as poverty, hunger, poor living conditions and having few or no political or personal freedoms, plus having to live under a highly arbitrary and non-democratic system of laws and edicts. Mr. Layton would not like to live under a regime where even the mildest of oppositional political activity could result in being imprisoned, tortured or executed, so why does he not realize that by asking Canadian troops to leave he would be consigning Afghans to the disagreeable state he would consider unacceptable?

As for 'mission creep', all expeditionary missions are subject to this problem, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. By going into a situation with a rigid doctrine and the idea that you will do x and only x, you rob yourself of the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions. The situation in Afghanistan has changed such that Canadian troops can no longer devote themselves exclusively to provincial reconstruction
tasks.


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Sep 2006)

> “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.  But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.  But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.  For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.  A murderer is less to fear.”
> -- Marcus Tullius Cicero --


----------



## warspite (2 Sep 2006)

The problem with our government is that it's a continuous cycle of  bickering and infighting. When you are ruled by politicians who have spent their lives convincing people to vote for them what else can you expect.  The main thing that can be said for our government is that it keeps the country plodding along while normal people go about their lives. The problem is when there is no one at the helm who knows where we are going or safe way to get there. Or when someones at the helm has an idea of where to go but has a bunch of backseat drivers telling him it's the wrong direction and to take a left. Historically theres always been some sort of target to reach,i.e. let's finish the railway, lets win the war, etc. nowadays the gov't doesn't hasn't had any major obstacles for a while and has had to find things to do i.e lets register all the rifles in the country. Basically the country stopped plodding along and sat down for a while. But now that we actually has a problem (i.e terrorism) and it's time for the country to start moving forward again no one the wheel has any real experience driving the country forward and at the moment it's the Harper gov't getting a crash course( and doing fairly well at it to boot) and the other two are sitting in the back acting like they have the only map and that they know the one true path.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Sep 2006)

Eland said:
			
		

> What Mr. Layton does not realize is....



...Canada is getting sick of left wing BS that has no practical application in the real world.  I also believe that Mr Layton is quite aware of the pluses and necessities of the whole mission, and could care less.  His disloyalty is more a function of trying to save face for previous poorly thought out statements and to bad mouth the PC's, and less a function of actual concern for our troops.  
I'm betting that if Smiling Jack could set the Way Back Machine to post election, he would have hung his star on the Conservatives, and not counted on Mr. Harper doing political "business as usual" and getting a non-confidence vote to push back in his Lieberal masters.


----------



## McG (5 Sep 2006)

lazye said:
			
		

> 1. What National Interest
> 2. Leadership, are we vying for a superpower postion
> 3. It is a nomadic waisteland, nothing to rebuild only blank cheques to write.


I suppose you'd have us "peacekeeping" instead?

Interesting to see that the NDP & Bloc are both trying to get in on this point scoring game.  Still, it is not as bad as members of the party which sent us attempting to stand on the bodies of our fallen in order to score points.

It is my firm belief that every soldier killed in Afghanistan, to this point in time, would still have been killed if the Liberals had won the last election.  Our course was charted well over a year ago.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (6 Sep 2006)

This is excellent,,,today's Toronto Sun.

September 6, 2006 

EDITORIAL: We cannot betray our soldiers now  

With 32 soldiers and a diplomat already having made the ultimate sacrifice for us in Afghanistan, it's time for an honest discussion about why we sent them there in the first place. 

We'd like to say it was because Canadians understood that Afghanistan under the Taliban had become a failed state, providing a safe harbour for terrorists like Osama bin Laden to plot 9/11 and countless other atrocities. 

We'd like to say it was because Canadians recognized that we needed to prevent that from happening again -- both for our own safety and for the sake of the people of Afghanistan. 

But we can't say that because a year after Paul Martin and the Liberals first chose the dangerous mission in Kandahar for our soldiers, it's apparent that far too many Canadians simply weren't paying attention when that decision was made. 

It's not as if we weren't warned. A year ago, then Liberal defence minister Bill Graham repeatedly told Canadians about how deadly Kandahar would be for our troops. So did Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier. But judging from the deeply divided opinion polls now, many of us weren't even listening. 

We naively assumed that Kandahar was another "peacekeeping" mission of the kind our governments -- both Liberal and Conservative -- have been bragging about for 50 years. 

Now, to their horror, many Canadians are finally realizing that Kandahar isn't a "peacekeeping" mission at all. That before there can be any peace, and for reconstruction and humanitarian aid to do any good, the Taliban must be defeated. 

NDP Leader Jack Layton, who a year ago supported this mission, now says we should pull out. He won't be the last Canadian politician to take the same appalling stand. 

We have never doubted that our soldiers are up to this task. The question now is, are the rest of us up to it? Because if the death of 32 soldiers is enough to sap our national will, we should never have sent any of them to Kandahar. We support this mission under Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, just as we did when the Liberals were in charge. 

But the more important question now is whether Canadians, having sent our soldiers into harm's way, are prepared to back them until they finish the job. Because if we are not, we should never have sent them to Kandahar in the first place, and we will have betrayed them in the worst possible way.


----------



## McG (7 Sep 2006)

At least some in the opposition have it right:


> Ignatieff says Canada belongs in Afghanistan because of 'moral promise'
> Angela Pacienza, Canadian Press
> Published: Thursday, September 07, 2006
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=7312ba33-7a46-488b-81ff-4fb757808910&k=70370


----------



## a_majoor (7 Sep 2006)

MGen Lewis MacKenzie weighs in: (fwd to me via email)

*The Afghan mission is not a failure * 
There's 'tradition' and then there's getting the job done, says retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie 
LEWIS MACKENZIE 

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

As the leader of a party that has little chance of governing the country, the NDP's Jack Layton can accept the political risk of holding up a mirror to the government's decisions and occasionally acting as our national conscience. On the subject of Canada's role in Afghanistan, however, I fear he is dead wrong and am left to wonder if he is following the polls and playing domestic politics on the backs of our soldiers. 

Mr. Layton says that he and the NDP support our soldiers but question the wisdom and achievability of NATO's mission in Afghanistan. And, having said that, he goes on to say the mission is the wrong mission for Canada and is, at the very least, unclear. I can only assume Mr. Layton's call for a withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2007, to pursue more traditional Canadian roles involving mediation and negotiation, is based on a widely held myth that we are better than the rest of the 192 nations in the United Nations at the dated concept of "peacekeeping."

Peacekeeping between states that went to war and needed an excuse to stop fighting worked relatively well during the Cold War and Canada played a role in each and every mission. Mind you, at the height of our participation in UN missions during the 1970s and '80s we had a maximum of 2,000 soldiers wearing the blue beret  deployed abroad in places such as Cyprus and the Golan Heights. At the same time, we had 10,000 personnel serving with NATO  on the Central Front in Germany, armed with nuclear weapons, ready and waiting for the Soviet hoards to attack across the East German border. Peacekeeping was a sideline activity. We did it well, along with others such as Sweden, India, Norway, Brazil -- but it was never even close to being our top priority.

The other Canadian myth that might have influenced Mr. Layton's ill-timed call for our withdrawal is the oft-quoted description of Canada's policies being "even-handed," "neutral" or "impartial." We never take a stand for fear of upsetting someone. But the facts surrounding even our exaggerated peacekeeping role explode this troubling myth. For example, in the approval process preceding the very first UN lightly armed peacekeeping mission -- stick-handled by Lester Pearson through a hesitant Security Council in 1956 -- Canada voted against the British and French and, by default, sided with Egypt. We took a stand. 

To suggest, as Mr. Layton does, that we should pull out of the Afghan mission next year and return to our more "traditional" roles ignores one compelling fact. There will be no significant capability for any nation to carry out those "traditional" roles of nation-building in southern Afghanistan until those who are committed to stopping such undertakings are removed from the equation.

In other words, by leaving, we would be saying to the remaining 36 nations on the ground in Afghanistan, "Hey guys, this is getting pretty difficult. We have decided to leave and go home, but don't worry, when the rest of you have put down this insurrection and things are peaceful, we will return and offer our vastly superior skills in putting countries back together. So please, call us as soon as the shooting stops -- for good."

For all those who, like Mr. Layton, say the mission is imprecise, unclear, without an exit strategy, etc., let me disagree and say that to a NATO military commander the mission is crystal clear. 

It is to leave Afghanistan as quickly as humanly possible -- having turned the security of the country over to competent Afghan military and police forces controlled in their efforts by a democratically elected national government. Sounds pretty clear to me.

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.

Available online at:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/RTGAM.20060906.wxcomack06/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Sep 2006)

Canada also loudly proclaimed Serbia as the bad guy in FRY back in '91, so choosing a side is not new to us.  I know, because me and 100 or so close friends were in Vukovar, firmly in Serb hands, at the time, and the warm fuzzy feeling went away pretty darn quick.


----------



## McG (12 Sep 2006)

Anyone that has been following this thread should read the Ruxted's latest on the topic: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49909.0.html


----------



## McG (12 Dec 2006)

> Bloc's Duceppe using soldiers as pawns: Harper
> Updated Tue. Dec. 12 2006 6:08 PM ET
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2006)

This is by John Ibbitson in today’s (13 Dec 06) _Globe and Mail_; it is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.  The first part deals with Mr. Justic O’Conor’s proposal for a new security agency oversight group and a suggestion that the there should be parliamentary oversight of the overseers; the pertinent bit, for this thread is *highlighted*: 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061213.wibbitson13/BNStory/National/home  


> Can we trust MPs to oversee the overseers?
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...



The key, I think, is this: _“As a responsible Leader of the Official Opposition, Mr. Dion could and should immediately declare his support for the government … But Mr. Dion must manage rebels in his own caucus who want to pull out of Afghanistan, and is tempted to exploit pacifist leanings both inside and outside Quebec. So he's sitting on the fence … Sitting on the fence is what politicians do when expediency trumps principle and weak leadership trumps strength of purpose. It is the sign of a Parliament whose leaders would rather chase after votes than serve their country's interests.”_

The problem is not that Gilles Duceppe is duplicitous or that Stéphane Dion is trying to manage a divided caucus.  The problem is that: we Canadians have, since the late ‘50s but especially since the late ‘60s, put sense of duty, sense of responsibility, high ethical standards way down at the bottom of our list of desirable (much less essential) standards for a politician.  Cheap ward heelers and pretentious, pseudo-intellectual media stars became the order of the day.  Part of the blame lies with _gotcha_ journalism – see the late George Bain’s lament for his profession in a book of similar name.  Journalists have decided that their job is to _catch_ the candidate rather than to inform the public.  This has led, directly, to the rise of the _flack_, the PR professional who hides the message and _packages_ the candidate for TV.  But: We get this system because *it is what we want*.  We Canadians know little and care less about our country – we just feel _entitled to our entitlements_, one of which is instant gratification.

While I think Ibbitson right about politicians in today’s column I also think he has missed the real problem: Canadians are getting the politicians they want, the politicians they actively seek and they are doing so because they are ill informed.  Part of Canadians’ ignorance is the fault of their own inherent idleness, part is the fault of a failed education system, but part lies with a misdirected media.


----------



## observor 69 (13 Dec 2006)

" Part of Canadians’ ignorance is the fault of their own inherent idleness, part is the fault of a failed education system, but part lies with a misdirected media'"

I was with you right up to this end sentence. Little bit over the top "idleness" and "failed education system." Steady now Edward!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Dec 2006)

In what way are Canadians in general not idle when it comes to matters of government integrity?  This is the same population that allowed the Lieberals to steal well over 2 billion dollars and waste another 2 billion on a useless gun registry.  Clearly, Canadians are apathetic.  
As for the failure of education, I don't believe he is referring to the classic education system in as much as kids graduating and being able to read.  But a more critical education system, wherein parents teach their children that this country is important and why (but I stand to be corrected).
The comment about feeling "entitled to their entitlements" is brilliant and sums up a great many individuals.  Many Canadians are so quick to point a self righteous finger at the USA and say "they are so greedy and they don't care about anything but themselves" (IMO this applies to pretty much any country) and yet at least the Americans have a sense of national unity and pride that far outstrips our own.  Canadians just let things happen, and never squawk about anything.  The odd protester type will, but by and large, for the stuff that matters, we just sit here and go "that's crap.  Someone should do something" and then flip the channel.


----------



## North Star (13 Dec 2006)

It's always comforting to keep quiet  when asked your opinion. But that's how things like the holocaust happen. 

It may be uncomfortable to get your hands dirty helping out. You may even suffer some stings on your hands and in your mind as you wonder if what you're doing is right. But at the very least, you won't be guilty of complicity.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Dec 2006)

The oversight should be in the Senate rather than Parliament; even if Harper's proposed reform legislation passes, the Senate is still going to be a body less driven by the exigencies of political parties.


----------



## bilton090 (14 Dec 2006)

Taliban ujjal dosanjh should shut the F-up. If he was over there, he would not last 5 min.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Dec 2006)

Prime Minister Harper is, finally, saying something about Afghanistan.

This is from today’s (20 Dec 06) _Ottawa Citizen_.  It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=91022318-f148-4a31-ba1e-ff8a8f58ebc0&k=26050 


> Harper says it would be “completely irresponsible” to reduce Afghan mission
> 
> Mark Kennedy, CanWest News Service
> Published: Tuesday, December 19, 2006
> ...



It appears, from this quote, that Harper, unlike many of his colleagues in the Parliament of Canada, actually understands Canadian history:

_’Some critics have said Canada is not doing enough to assist the Afghan people through humanitarian programs and development assistance, and that instead, this country’s approach has become too warlike and is not following decades of work as international peacekeepers … But Harper rejected that analysis, saying Canada has an “aggressive military history” in two world wars … “But Afghanistan is a unique mission. It’s neither war nor peace-keeping. It’s a security operation that involves pretty direct combat with the enemy.”’_

He has thrown down a gauntlet which, I suspect, none of the other party leaders have the brains to answer or the guts to address: *“The Liberals and the Bloc tell me: rebalance the mission. What does that mean? I mean, what the hell does that mean?”*  I contend than none of Dion, Duceppe or Layton have actually *thought* about the mission in Afghanistan.  They just bray their unprincipled opposition to it because they think (maybe that’s not the right word) that will pacify the lazy latté sippers in trendy Toronto.

I still wish that, as Ruxted suggested here:  http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/25-More-Free-Advice-for-Prime-Minister-Harper-Its-Time-to-Communicate.html and here http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/24-The-Afghanistan-Debate.html , the PM would get out and tell Canadians why we are fighting in Afghanistan and why we need to finish the job.  I think that would take the wind out of many opposition sails.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Dec 2006)

IMO good people management strategy in throwing a nod at the NDP.  It doesn't cost anything to call them "consistant" and they are so quickly becoming a fringe group with no relevance that he can afford it.  It does, by contrast, hang out the Bloc and the Libs as being vacillating opportunists.  
More decisive leadership from Mr. Harper.  So refreshing and unexpected in politics.  
+1 Edward on a public info message that is beyond clear from the PM to the rest of the country, once and for all.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (21 Dec 2006)

I think the PM has been very clear on a great number of occasions. The CDS has been very clear...extremely clear and so has the Minister. The big problem is we are dealing with people who don't like the answer. It's the same reason why we keep having referendums in Quebec. They don't like the answer they keep getting so they're going to keep doing it till they obfiscate the question badly enought to trick people into voting for what they want.
I quit posting in another forum called Politics Canada because the lefties were just not listening when you were posting the reasons why we are there and the kind of work we are doing. They really don't want to know. They want to keep saying that the PM hasn't told people why we are there....absolute Cods Wallop!


----------

