• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

M. Coderre is Wrong

ruxted

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Link to original article on ruxted.ca


M. Coderre is Wrong

M. Denis Coderre, the Liberal Party of Canada’s defence critic, is wrong. We are not talking about his “fact finding” mission in Afghanistan – the one about which he says no facts can be allowed to change his or his party’s position about the need for Canada to withdraw from combat operations in February 2009. We are talking about this:

"We're not abandoning the Afghan people. There might be another way at the military level to help them … But we believe about the combat mission that rotation [out of a combat role] is in order … If we say there is a rotation, we don't have to be shy. We did a great job for three years."
(Source: The National Post, 9 Oct 07 - http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/world/story.html?id=5099503e-bf8d-4e19-9cba-e055c057ffc0 )

In essence M. Coderre proposes that Canada should do less in order to encourage other NATO members to do more. He actually appears able to say this preposterous nonsense with a straight face.

Canada spent long enough (roughly 1969 through 1995) doing far, far less than its ‘fair share’ of NATO’s work. That we have, in the Balkans and now in Afghanistan, resumed our traditional and rightful place as a willing leader of NATO’s secondary or middle powers reflects credit upon Prime Ministers Chrétien, Martin and Harper and, indeed, upon M. Coderre who served in the Chrétien and Martin cabinets and, therefore, must have actively supported the Afghanistan mission – including the essentially open ended* combat mission in Kandahar.

What M. Coderre, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada we presume, proposes is that Canada should abandon the attempt to restore our leadership position – the attempt begun by Prime Minister Martin in 2005 and continued by Prime Minister Harper – and revert to Pierre Trudeau’s vision of Canada as a disengaged, weak, poor little country beset by too many domestic social and political problem to do anything like lead in the world.

Canada is not weak. Canada is not poor. Canada is not little. It does have internal domestic problems, just like every other country on the planet – the only difference is that, compared to most, our problems are small and easy to resolve, peacefully.

No one is forcing Canada to be a leader. No one has to care about Canadians’ views on issues such as Darfur. Quite frankly, the world does not need “more Canada”- during the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s, the world got along quite well with Canada riding along for free in the cheap seats. But, Prime Ministers Martin and Harper appear to have been convinced that Canadians want to be heard in the world, to lead. Ruxted contends that, at a minimum, Canada should do what is right - in this case, helping establish a stable and secure environment in Afghanistan so sustainable reconstruction and development can happen, and the rule of law can be promoted.

If Canadians want to return to the Trudeau vision then, as soon as possible, they will endorse M. Coderre’s views and, presumably, his party, too.

If Canadians want to matter; if they want their voice to be heard in the world then they will reject M. Coderre and all who agree with him.

The Ruxted Group is firm in its positions: Denis Coderre is wrong. He represents failure for Canada, not just in Afghanistan but as a responsible member of the world community.

We will not encourage other NATO members to take on additional duties in Afghanistan if we return to our previous position of abandoning the responsibilities we agreed to carry. If we are going to lead then we must lead by example. Deeds matter more than words, especially M., Coderre’s ill considered and illogical words.


----------
* Although the mission was announced as having a one year (Feb 2005 to Feb 2006) ‘mandate,’ governments of Canada have routinely extended mandates of various missions (UN and NATO). Not extending a UN or NATO mission is exceptional.
 
Well said, Ruxted. You should put this article into the Editorial section of some major newspapers (Vancouver Sun, Toronto Star etc).
 
Newfie...
No one will ever know cause his term of leadership didn't last long enough to make a mark
He DID have a decent MND in Mr Graham.  Mrt Graham worked well with CDS Hillier.
There were plans to buy some / all the kit that has been fastracked under Mr Harper.

WRT Mr Coderre = he's an a$$ -
 
I could not agree more. I think Canada has gone beyond the Trudeu zeitgeist, and currently it would be contra-productive to adopt a passive and isolationist position. If we retire from our mission in Afghanistan, other NATO allies will feel extremely discouraged of maintaining their participation in ISAF. And dont get me wrong, I beleive that they should take a more active role in the mission, however backing off just sends the wrong message. Anyways "left-wing soft power solves everything liberals" really suck.
 
Too many Canadians live under a privilege umbrella called a safe and secure society. Maybe we need to help the rest of the world live in a safe and secure enviroment by kickking a little tush to "not good" guys.
 
This  raises an interesting question that I would love to see people like Mr Layton, Stephen Staples, and the rest of that crew of "cutters and runners" answer: if we had never suffered a single casualty in Afghanistan, would they still insist that we leave immediately? If the answer is "no", then do they also believe that losing lives in the service of a cause or mission somehow makes that cause or mission "wrong"?

I could easily push their left-wing buttons by asking about losses suffered in various left-wing revolutions, or even domestic things like the Winnipeg General Strike. Were those left wing causes negated or devalued because people died trying to achieve their aims?

I hear so many people talk about the "71 deaths" until it almost becomes a mantra. If the point of endlessly bringing up casualties is to remind ourselves that important things come with a cost, that soldiers lose their lives facing dangerous enemies, and that foreign policy decisions involving military force should not be made lightly: roger all that. If, however, the suggestion is that these deaths somehow negate the value of the mission, or of all the things that have been achieved because of the mission, then this is a grotesque misuse of those deaths, and one that I am very sure the dead themselves would reject.

We have suffered deaths in the service of a cause before: many more of them in a much shorter periods of time, and from a national population a fraction the size of what it is now. The people we have lost in Afghanistan have joined that honourable company. Have we lost sight of that historical fact? Are we losing the ability as a nation to stand up when called on, or is it just that our successive governments have failed to call on Canadians in the right way, so that the door is open for the naysayers and "abandon-ers" to spread their poison?

Cheers

 
pbi said:
We have suffered deaths in the service of a cause before: many more of them in a much shorter periods of time, and from a national population a fraction the size of what it is now. The people we have lost in Afghanistan have joined that honourable company. Have we lost sight of that historical fact? Are we losing the ability as a nation to stand up when called on, or is it just that our successive governments have failed to call on Canadians in the right way, so that the door is open for the naysayers and "abandon-ers" to spread their poison?

Cheers

Very well put.....excellent  :salute:
 
pbi said:
...

We have suffered deaths in the service of a cause before: many more of them in a much shorter periods of time, and from a national population a fraction the size of what it is now. The people we have lost in Afghanistan have joined that honourable company. Have we lost sight of that historical fact? Are we losing the ability as a nation to stand up when called on, or is it just that our successive governments have failed to call on Canadians in the right way, so that the door is open for the naysayers and "abandon-ers" to spread their poison?

Cheers

Indeed; and see Ruxted's Seventy piece from about six weeks ago.

Just over a year ago Prime Minister Harper made the point that casualties are "the price Canada is paying for playing a leadership role in world affairs."

Many members, here on Milnet.ca, have opined that you folks in the military are policy "tools" - and on some job site tools often often given hard use. Too many Canadians seem to be focused on the tools, not the job. That's a shame.
 
Mr.Coderre is at it again. He claimed Canadian troops were complacent in the torture of afghan detainees. Which is sort of irrelevent as the troops hand them over as per the rules


(Personal attack removed (attached image) by Moderator.)
 
How many police die each year in the line duty ?, do we have them stop doing there job , because some might die  ::) .
  We are over there to do a job, and part of the job is we might ! get killed. I think it's better to die over there, doing your job, then to get killed by some drunk driver here in Canada.

          My 2 cents !
 
Back
Top