Responses to Irresponsible Opposition

[ruxted]

Please post all replies to the Irresponsible Opposition Editorial here.

 

[GAP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Excellent post, Zipperhead_cop! 

+1

 

[George Wallace]

zipperhead_cop

That was worth framing.

 

[CanadaPhil]

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

+1

 

[Deleted member 6930]

:cheers:

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

 

[zipperhead_cop]

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

 

[TMM]

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

 

[a_majoor]

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.

A rising number of questions, mounting evidence and previous events suggest that as many as half of the reported deaths at Qana were planted bodies brought to the bombed building for the benefit of world reporters. Lets us recall that the desacrations of these children are being orchestrated, managed and executed by God’s Partisans in the name of Allah.

The editorial in the NP this morning (accessible here) points out at the existing macabre tradition:

Twenty-eight civilian deaths is certainly horrible enough — especially when 16 of them are children. But this total is less than half the figure originally reported.

Israel’s terrorist enemies have used such tactics before. During the 2002 Battle of Bethlehem, which began after Israel lifted a Palestinian siege at the Church of the Nativity, a fearsome firefight occurring on that town’s streets. Palestinians claimed Israeli forces had shelled a hospital and killed dozens of defenceless patients. Later it was discovered, however, that most of the dead were in fact corpses disinterred from a nearby cemetery and smuggled into the hospital — likely in the back of ambulances — to be strewn among the damage and so lend credibility to Palestinian propaganda claims that a civilian slaughter had occurred.

The EU Referendum [1, 2, 3], American Thinker, Confederate Yankee have posted some thoughtful questions and the issued raised by a careful analysis of the crafted images from Qana. Haaretz raises more questions here. Michelle Malkin summarises the deeds.

 

[FastEddy]

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]

Z-C for president of Ruxtedistan!!

 

[Edward Campbell]

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.

That is an astonishing thing for a leading member of the Liberal Party to say. It was, after all, a former Liberal government -- his government -- that decided to send Canadian troops on their dangerous mission in southern Afghanistan in the first place. That government made it clear that this was not just a peacekeeping mission. Its ministers told Canadians quite clearly that there would be fighting and there would be deaths, but that the goal of stabilizing Afghanistan and giving its people a chance to live a decent life was worth the risk. Mr. Dosanjh was a leading cabinet minister in that government. Now that he has the luxury of being in opposition, has he suddenly decided that his government was wrong?

The intention of this mission has not changed. It is the same as it was when Mr. Dosanjh was in office. It is to make the Canadians' corner of Afghanistan safe enough that the Afghan government can extend its authority and get on with the job of rebuilding. The Taliban, seeking to regain control of the country they lost in 2001, are trying to wreck that effort. They are burning down schoolhouses. They are killing Afghan government police, soldiers and officials. They are sending suicide bombers to blow themselves up in streets packed with innocent people. If they succeed, it will be impossible for the country to get back on its feet. That is why Canadians are fighting the Taliban -- not because they love a scrap or have become slaves to U.S. policy, but because they know that the aid that Afghans so desperately need won't get through unless someone confronts those who are standing in the way.

To say that Afghanistan has "become almost totally a combat mission" is nonsense. Canada is spending $100-milliona year on aid to Afghanistan. That money is being used to help women acquire the skills they need to work, to distribute loans to people who want to start small businesses and to help clear the heavily mined Afghan countryside. As Canada's military commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier-General David Fraser, pointed out the other day, Canadians are not just fighting the Taliban over there. They are building schools and treating the sick.

The one cannot happen without the other. This was always going to be a dual mission, with armed force clearing the way for aid and development. The Liberals' interim leader Bill Graham seems to understand that. He says that "we knew this was going to be a very tough mission." Why doesn't his defence critic understand it?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.