# Comments on Carolyn Parrish: Response to editorial



## Mike Bobbitt (10 Aug 2005)

Note: This thread is for responses to the Carolyn Parrish: Response to editorial topic.


----------



## Sig_Des (10 Aug 2005)

"With respect I would also suggest that General Hiller's "political dabbling" in the form of public statements of a most colorful and provocative nature, were best kept private for the inspiration of his troops, if uttered at all."

From what I gather, Ms. Parrish is saying Gen. Hillier can say anything he wants to the troops to inspire them, but God help him if his comments get out to the public where they might actually affect someting other than troop morale.

IMHO


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (10 Aug 2005)

> My comments were abbreviated by a half-listening reporter.  We have 100 years of history of which we can all be proud.



And what does she mean by this?

Last I heard, Canada has more than 100 years of history, and more than 100 years of military history.  Are we supposed to be ashamed of fighting-off the Fenians, stopping the Metis Rebellions and protecting our Queen and the Commonwealth in South Africa?  Or is she talking out of both sides of her mouth?



> I prefer to call what we, as proud Canadians did peacemaking.  We were not the aggressors; we were the ones who made peace the outcome of wars initiated by tyrants.


Yeah, unlike our ruthless pre-9/11 attack on Afghanistan: does anyone actually believe this tripe?



> I don't believe one can force democracy upon a people, such as those in Iraq, by dropping bombs on thousands of civilians.


Germany? Japan?  Hello?

I can't even stomach this ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2005)

Interesting "response". Blames the reporter (sounds like her usual MO), and spouts off some vaccuous generalities which are completely unanchored by factual references. 

The only thing I will give her credit for is having the "parts" to make a public response. Once she can make an *informed* response then maybe she will be worth listening to.....


----------



## canadianblue (10 Aug 2005)

> I don't believe that Ernie "Smoky" Smith became a Victoria Cross-winning hero so Canadian troops can kill Afghanis to prop up a US-placed puppet government and protect access to much-coveted oil fields.



Theres oil fields in Afganistan :-\


----------



## bob the piper (11 Aug 2005)

> We have 100 years of history of which we can all be proud.  The first fifty years I referred to were filled with justified military action to protect our king, the Commonwealth and democracy in Europe.



Did she forget about the Boer War and what Canadian troops did to protect democracy in Korea as well?


----------



## Mineguy (11 Aug 2005)

Vent on!!

I like how she sees it in her world that all defence decesions are now made only and soley by the life long soldiers!! Of course the decsion making responsability that the PM and defence minister have has been left all to the soldiers now and are just signing every thing suggsted blindly without consulting the lifelong soldier experts if thats a good idea or not!!

Shes also clearly the hardcore tree hugger type who digs right in an eats up the popular and safe opinion that "canadian soldiers are only peacekeepers" so probabaly she can continue to live in the sedated bubble thats very soothing and protective for her that everybody loves everybody in this new post 9/11 world, only peacekeeping will solve and protect us from attack because war or aggressivly protecting yourself (also called in her world peacemaking) ahead of time is not smart and that Canada has got its name even through modern and recent peacekeeping ops and war in Afghanistan by not hurting a fly.

I was in Iraq and I never met one iraqi who didnt want or express thanks for the invasion to free them, but she would have to go there herself to hear comments like that from informed sources...

Of course we are Peacekeeping in the war on terrorisim in afghanistan she also most likley believes...and thats all the public should know too, cos of course theyre cdn soldiers and aernt trained or used to kill, theyre trained to peacekeep because we did peacemaking a few times a a long time ago on somebody elses watch in parliment and a lot of guys died. Well I wonder what it would be like to go back in time on Normandy beachand tell the troops theyre about to peacemake... or..to tell smokey smith (and all those others who deserved a VC but never got one) when hes engaging the force he engaged that hes peacemaking not killing and thats hes doing that so the cdn forces can carry out all other ops in future in that context for the political protection of MPs who cant afford somthing bad to happen where the Politicans who are the leaders lead and the soldiers who fight only and do not know anything about leadership or have any role in shaping the future world in their hands at 22 years old.......

I think its just plainy obvious with her uninformed and spiteful comments and retortals that she is a very bitter MP who is gonna fade away because she cannot keep up and see what is happening and is fast becoming a political dinosour with her opinionated views and the changing cdn forces (whoch im sure alot more of them dont like either but they know the way the wind is blowing) in the new world thats been thrust onto us and how she should be changing modifying her views during a time when canadian policey is changing and stepping out of the military rut it was in when these types of people were happy as larks that we were in that protective rut for so long and nothing bad would happen on their watch in the military world while they spouted off the same verbal lines about canadas history and why we are who we are in their uninformed opinion.

But you can say all this to your troops and knock yourself out cos im so proud of you specail people but just not the public cos they dont read the papers and they want the PM and defence minister to make descisions on their behalf   without asking life long soldiers if thats a good idea or not in sending their personal children somewhere dangerous and I might have to answer to this and bring the government down first chance i get!

Vent off!!


----------



## Franko (11 Aug 2005)

What a bunch of beat nick tripe   :

If she has such insight in the workings of NATO and has "Been there. Done that." then she should know exactly where Gen Hillier is coming from. 

Obviously she doesn't....she must have been asleep at those meetings.

The idea of the CDS not being able to talk directly to the Canadian public is absolutly ludacrous. He is the representative and the head of the CF.....he is responsible overall for the welfare of the troops and determining the direction for the defence of Canada. 

Why can't he speak his mind. He's always direct and to the point...never mincing words either.

Meanwhile there's Carolyn....doing skits on 22 Minutes...beaking off about her hate of the Yanks etc.

Talk about double standard. I guess anyone in Parliment can make an arse of themselves and not be held accountable....

I wonder what colour the sky is in her mind?   :

Regards


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Aug 2005)

> I prefer to call what we, as proud Canadians did peacemaking.


 Revisionism at work.   I am pretty sure the vets and everyone else a the time called what we did, FIGHTING a WAR. This kind of muddy thinking has already reduced highschool history lessons about WW2 to "We intured the Japanese" and "Women became a big part of the workforce, because all the able bodied men suddenly dissapeared and went to Europe."



> I've traveled all through Eastern Europe and the Middle East as a Member of Parliament of one of the most beloved countries in the world


 So? Your point Ms Parrish is what?



> My interest was inspired by Lloyd Axworthy's Ottawa Convention, an international proposal to cease the manufacture and use of anti-personnel landmines â â€œ evil devices which maimed more often than they killed.


   Thats rich, like it was Axworthy who crusaded the cause to ban anti-pers mines.   I seem to remember a few other people (including a famous member of the royale family) involved in bring this to international attention.   The second part, hmm I thought that was the whole point behind mines, to maim and injure, as a corpse won't be screaming in pain.



> The Turks turned down $2 billion in the form of a "foreign aid" bribe only to be coerced into accepting NATO troops that turned out to be 100% American in composition


   So only the Americans can "bribe" people with tax money. 



> I don't believe one can force democracy upon a people, such as those in Iraq, by dropping bombs on thousands of civilians



As someone else mentioned, it seemed to work in Germany and Japan, and then more unsustantiated rhetoric.



> I don't believe that Ernie "Smoky" Smith became a Victoria Cross-winning hero so Canadian troops can kill Afghanis to prop up a US-placed puppet government and protect access to much-coveted oil fields.


 I *DON'T* believe Mr. Smith or any soldier (VC winners and non-winners) during that time "became" anything.   They did their jobs, some went above and beyond, some didn't.   Some were recognized, some were not. To try and use his name or any other Vet from that era, to prove yet another unsubstantiaded claim, is truly low class and disgusting.



> I've heard from soldiers who are serving Canada today, and those who served in the past.   I am deeply grateful to both for keeping my country and my way of life safe for me, for my children, and for my grandson Jake.
> 
> Perhaps, as many other writers have suggested, I am a left-wing peacenik.   I prefer to believe I am looking to a brighter future where we get at the root causes of terrorism, war and aggression rather than become brutal aggressors ourselves.



You have heard from currently serving soldiers, really?   And they didn't tell you to shut your trap.   You can prefer to believe you are not a left-wing peacenik (loudmouth, busy-body), but that still doesn't change the fact you are one.   You wanna get at the root causes of terrorism, war etc.? I suggest you invest in a large bio-tech firm that does genetic research.   Then get them to find the gene(s) responsible for making man crave power over others, horde wealth, and have a general disrecard for life, and develop a way to remove those genes from all 6 billion current humans and all future ones.   The maybe we can have the Utopian fantasy land you and your kind dream of.    Until this happens there WILL always be WAR, and those who get rich and powerful on the suffering of others.



> Primitive, hand-to-hand combat in the trenches, with bayonets and mustard gas has been replaced by nuclear bombs, sophisticated weaponry and satellite directed weapons deployment.   Surely we can progress far enough so humankind will no longer have to bury its mistakes in the hundreds of thousands.


   

I was pretty sure that the last and only times nukes were used was oh I dunno 60 years ago.   Has one been used in conflict recently that only you are aware of Ms. Parrish.   No more primitive hand to hand combat with bayonets you say huh?   We only use sophisticated weapons some even directed by satellite.   Glad to hear it! Really!   Those boys heading to Kandahar have nothing to be concerned about now.   Some satellite guided terminator robot will being doing the fighting!   And I guess all those allied soldiers in Iraq are dying from some form of mystery disease.



> With respect I would also suggest that General Hiller's "political dabbling" in the form of public statements of a most colorful and provocative nature


   And the statements you make are not? :



> The day our political leaders, the Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, abdicate their responsibility to set our military policy to a lifelong soldier is the day I say that these leaders are not doing the job they were elected to do


   Cause a full General who has spent most of his life in the military is not the best choice to if not set but direct military policy?   I think you are confused about Military Policy and Foriegn Policy.



> Soldiers *fight*, politicians lead.   And such leadership should be within the guidelines of the wishes of the Canadian people.


 I thought you said we should peacemake/keep?   Wow never ceases to amaze me how liberal softies like you can speak out of both sides of you mouth and still keep a straight face.

Okay time for bed.


----------



## Savage (11 Aug 2005)

I am ashamed that she represented Canada at NATO and I would really like to know what policies are in place because of her? If anyone out there knows please tell us.


----------



## MdB (11 Aug 2005)

Franko said:
			
		

> The idea of the CDS not being able to talk directly to the Canadian public is absolutly ludacrous. He is the representative and the head of the CF.....he is responsible overall for the welfare of the troops and determining the direction for the defence of Canada.



Totally agree with you here.

I think the civil-military relationship has been broken long ago. MP Parrish says long about that. She won't even admit that the CDS, even less military personnel, should play a important role in our society.

The other thing is that why for God's sake politician can't have a proper comment without exagerating. Oh yeah, they're politicians, forgot... Without kidding, there's a long strech between invading a country AND defending (peacekeeping) some area. There's something in between and this is CF duty to inform the public. Now, they do lots of press conferences and some medias spread good infos to the Canadian public.

As representative of the Canadian population, she clearly shows that they are disconnected from the world reality that this is not only poverty out there (ie outside of Canada). This is violent, there's sometimes not freakin authority or law and order other than the local boss/mafia/clan. This IS NOT Canada. Now, we're able to make a difference through our armed forces and let's assume it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2005)

Savage said:
			
		

> I am ashamed that she represented Canada at NATO and I would really like to know what policies are in place because of her? If anyone out there knows please tell us.



Ms. Parrish did NOT _represent Canada at NATO_.  Consequently NO policies are in place because of her words and deeds.

Ms. Parrish was a member and later Chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.  In that capacity she was selected to chair the plenary session of a NATO Parliamentary Association meeting.

The NATO Parliamentary Association is just that: an _association_ of parliamentarians from several NATO members states who gather every now and again to discuss whatever.  Sometimes we call these 'meeting' junkets, but I do not wish to belittle them.  Canadian Parliamentarians can learn a lot from joining and participating in the many _Parliamentary Associations_ which exist and a certain, but limited amount of _informal diplomacy_ is possible.

Canada - the Government of Canada - is represented in NATO by:

"¢	The Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence, at the very top level; and

"¢	The Canadian Joint Delegation to NATO headed, jointly, by Ambassador Juneau and VAdm Davidson.


----------



## Savage (11 Aug 2005)

Thanks for the info


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (11 Aug 2005)

Typical Canadian politician, taking credit for someone else's work. Did anyone notice she was doing (attempting) damage control, while still trying to make her original point about Gen. Hillier?


----------



## Hunter (12 Aug 2005)

> "Soldiers fight, politicians lead."



Someone should tell Ms Parrish that there's more to leadership than just jumping in front of the parade.


----------



## 48Highlander (14 Aug 2005)

Well, I'm gonna go on record as being the only one here who liked her reply   It was about a billion times better than the usual "peace good, bush bad!" junk.

It's obvious she, at the very least, means well.  She has her world view, and she wants to do what she feels is the right thing for her country.  She might be EXTREMELY misguided in her beliefs, but at least she's trying to do the right thing!  That's something I can respect.

The problem is, people like her understand that, sometimes, force IS neccesary...but they're unable to judge when those times come upon us.  Except, ofcourse, in hindsight.  To her, it's obvious that we did what we had to do in WW2, however, if she had been alive at the beggining of it, she would have been opposed to Canadian involvement.  And unfortiunately she also makes her judgements based on her baseles dislike for Americans.  She insults them for their "evil" involvement in Vietnam, yet has no problem with the Canadian participation in South Korea, a very similar war.  I'm sure that THE main reasons she's opposed to our involvement in Afghanistan is because that campaign was started by those horrible American Bastards.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Aug 2005)

I liked her reply in so far as, it was an attempt at rational thought, and not some long winded rant.  However I still stand by my critisisms.


----------



## MCpl Wesite (14 Aug 2005)

If this woman is an elected member of parlament, who let her in? ??? (For shame)

To use Smoky's name is a disgrace. She probably didn't know he existed before his death. I met Smoky and he'd tell this windbag to f&*K off, right before he'd finish his beer with the boys.

I hope she reads this site just to know the opinion her 'peacekeeping' troops have for her :threat:


----------



## McG (15 Aug 2005)

Carolyn Parrish  said:
			
		

> Canada's last fifty years have been devoted to peacemaking, not attacking
> hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians with bombs.





			
				Carolyn Parrish said:
			
		

> I don't believe one can force democracy upon a people, such as those in Iraq, by dropping bombs on thousands of civilians.


I'm insulted that she has such a poor understanding of the professional Canadian soldier as to suggest we have been complicit to wanton tossing of bombs at thousands to hundreds of thousands of helpless civilians.

Civilians will die when they are in the beaten zone next to legitimate targets.  However, Carolyn Parrish's language choice falsely sensationalizes these types of tragedies as though they were an intentional and constant part of the US military campaign.  It is not happening.


----------



## COBRA-6 (16 Aug 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You wanna get at the root causes of terrorism, war etc.? I suggest you invest in a large bio-tech firm that does genetic research.   Then get them to find the gene(s) responsible for making man crave power over others, horde wealth, and have a general disrecard for life, and develop a way to remove those genes from all 6 billion current humans and all future ones.   The maybe we can have the Utopian fantasy land you and your kind dream of.    Until this happens there WILL always be WAR, and those who get rich and powerful on the suffering of others.



Well said Hatchet Man! The utopianists seem to think all people are inherently good and reasonable, which, of course they are not.


----------



## Bill Smy (16 Aug 2005)

All good comments, but they mean ziltz if she does not read them. I was once told that MPs considered one letter to represent about 300 or so others of similar conviction.

let's swamp her and let her know what we think of her behaviour and beliefs. Email her at Parrish.C@parl.gc.ca

Whenever someone sends me a poem, etc, supporting the soldiers of the US, UK or Cda, I send it along Parrish. If nothing it will keep her staff busy.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Well, I'm gonna go on record as being the only one here who liked her reply    It was about a billion times better than the usual "peace good, bush bad!" junk..



It is a good reply.  The only thing I took exception to was her mention that Hillier's comments should have been made either for the troops, or not at all.  I can see her point of view about saying stuff like that solely for your soldiers; I don't think they should have been left unsaid.  Moreover, I don't see the harm in civilians hearing that their Army is expected to fight and win on the battlefield.  Otherwise, a surprising response.  I guess sound bites don't just misrepresent the Army, but everyone, eh?


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Aug 2005)

> Primitive, hand-to-hand combat in the trenches, with bayonets and mustard gas has been replaced by nuclear bombs, sophisticated weaponry and satellite directed weapons deployment.



Replaced? Sure it has.


----------



## Radop (19 Aug 2005)

Although I don't care for her antics on the hill, I think she has made the effort to respond.  By being brutally ignorant in our responses to her will only cause her to distrust us as well.  Providing our own proof to counter her arguments is the only way to convincer her were she has erred.  Some people correctly pointed out facts and errors in her statements.  Others made statements such as "have you heard such F$#@ing crap" or words to that effect.  We start looking like bullies who do not know what we are talking about.  I believe the more responses that are using fact and presenting them with quiet conviction will go further than "I am telling you what to do women".  There is a time and place to be aggressive, this is not it.  She was willing to engage us with a discusion.  Talk and engage her, don't force her out.  It is never bad to have any politicians ear.

Ms. Parrish has made many statements that I find unwarranted as a professional soldier but I would like to discuss the matter further with her.  I have more respect for her now than before as I though she was a total trouble maker.  I think she would listen to our concerns if we articulated them to her.  Maybe she can raise our concerns in the house unlike the CDS.  I still believe in the CDS's vision and right to address the public if he thinks the military is being treated poorly.  I believe he is a leader who may be called upon to lead us in the fight if necessary.  Politicians just send us to fight on their behalf without having to put their lives on the line.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2005)

Bill Smy said:
			
		

> All good comments, but they mean ziltz if she does not read them. I was once told that MPs considered one letter to represent about 300 or so others of similar conviction.
> 
> let's swamp her and let her know what we think of her behaviour and beliefs. Email her at Parrish.C@parl.gc.ca
> 
> Whenever someone sends me a poem, etc, supporting the soldiers of the US, UK or Cda, I send it along Parrish. If nothing it will keep her staff busy.



As it happens, Bill, she sent me an E-mail today.  I became the unofficial conduit, I guess.

Here is my response:



> Dear Ms. Parrish;
> 
> 200+ people read your response and almost 25 made some comment.  You can see them here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33393.15.html
> 
> ...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (25 Aug 2005)

Very nice and civilized, Edward...


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Nov 2005)

"Soldiers fight, politicians lead." *WRONG*
Politicans start the wars, Soldiers clean up the mess


----------



## starlight_cdn (17 Nov 2005)

I support our CDS  over this uninformed, rude, publicity-seeking belligerent without hesitation. Ms. Parrish has long been the example of how 'out of touch' the ruling Liberal Party is with the post 9/11 world. The CDS has shown us, leading by example, how to soldier in this new world. Bravo Zulu,sir.


----------

