Responses to Irresponsible Opposition
- Thread starter ruxted
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Eland said:
...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
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Points
- 1,160
I suppose you'd have us "peacekeeping" instead?lazye said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
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
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
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
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.
- Reaction score
- 5,949
- Points
- 1,260
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
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.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061213.wibbitson13/BNStory/National/home
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.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
" 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!
I was with you right up to this end sentence. Little bit over the top "idleness" and "failed education system." Steady now Edward!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.
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
Member
- Reaction score
- 41
- Points
- 330
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.
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
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,635
- Points
- 1,040
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.
- Reaction score
- 5,949
- Points
- 1,260
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
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.
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
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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!
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!
