Canada's achievments

[margrace]

This was sent to me by a friend, I am picking this out to post, It was originally in a British newspaper.

Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achiements of its sons and Dauthters as the rest of the world is completely unaware of them. The Candians proudly say of themselves - and are unheard by anyone else - That 1% of the world's population has provided 10% of the world's peacekeeping forces. Canadian soldiers in the past half century have been the greatest peacekeepers on Earth - in 39 missions on UN mandated, and six on no-UN peacekeeping duties, from Vietnam to East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia.

Yet the only foreign engagement that has entered the popular on-Canadian imagination was the sorry affair in Somalia, in which out-of -control paratroopers murdered two Somali infiltrators. Their regiment was then disbanded in disgrace - a uniquely Canadian act of self-abasement for which, naturally, the Canadians received no internation credit

Did Mr. Harper even care about this when he sent our troops into active combate changing the original mandate there.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Times change and our goverment has reflected the sentiments of its citizens. We have changed as well, because 911 really did change things. America, our greatest ally, finds itself at war and we are compelled to stand with them to a large degree.

The entire world is becoming polarized and there are choices to be made by all nations. Unfortunately the citizens of Canada have not seen fit to examine the options carefully and have taken the least path of resistance. Its not an issue of us or them as we have been lead to believe by weak minded political opportunists, but instead it is a question of a much more profound implication. The problem lays buried in international political intrique surrounded by no less than the power of economics and religion. While it has been said that terrorism threatens our society the reality is that if our society threatens their society then terrorism is the tool of choice for a society much less affluent than ours. It is a tactic that can be used to leverage our own citizens against our governments in order to attain a political objective. It has and still is working in favour of the terrorists. That is why this particular tool of warfare was chosen by those in position to do so.

The simple reality is that Canada has no place in this war, nor should it. Our nation has another alternative available to it should it have the fortitude to do so. We can choose the path of nuetrality and take no side in the events of violence which take the lives of citizens. The choice needs to be made by the citizens of this nation. I do not suggest that we forego our own defense, merely that we forego acts of aggression outside of our own borders.

[jbg]

The simple reality is that Canada has no place in this war, nor should it. Our nation has another alternative available to it should it have the fortitude to do so. We can choose the path of nuetrality and take no side in the events of violence which take the lives of citizens. The choice needs to be made by the citizens of this nation. I do not suggest that we forego our own defense, merely that we forego acts of aggression outside of our own borders.

Given your geography, position as core WW I and II ally and role in the Anglosphere I hardly think that's realistic. You're identified with the West and are treated as such.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We are indeed identified with the western Angloshere. We always will be JBG. What I am suggesting is that our citizens need to become more informed and more active in their political lives. There is more than one way to skin a cat. We had no active role in Vietman, or Panama, Grenada or even Cuba.

[Leafless]

We are indeed identified with the western Angloshere. We always will be JBG. What I am suggesting is that our citizens need to become more informed and more active in their political lives. There is more than one way to skin a cat. We had no active role in Vietman, or Panama, Grenada or even Cuba.

What you are saying is BS.

U.S. interest are Canadian interest that are reflected in a higher ratio of exports, which are about as high as you possibly can go as seen from a Canadian perspective.

Why should Canada continue to see the net benefits of U.S. foreign interest, when Canada shys away from the U.S. as a true aly and one that is very dependent on the continuing success of U.S. military operations.

[tml12]

We are indeed identified with the western Angloshere. We always will be JBG. What I am suggesting is that our citizens need to become more informed and more active in their political lives. There is more than one way to skin a cat. We had no active role in Vietman, or Panama, Grenada or even Cuba.

What you are saying is BS.

U.S. interest are Canadian interest that are reflected in a higher ratio of exports, which are about as high as you possibly can go as seen from a Canadian perspective.

Why should Canada continue to see the net benefits of U.S. foreign interest, when Canada shys away from the U.S. as a true aly and one that is very dependent on the continuing success of U.S. military operations.

Completely agreed...well said!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We are indeed identified with the western Angloshere. We always will be JBG. What I am suggesting is that our citizens need to become more informed and more active in their political lives. There is more than one way to skin a cat. We had no active role in Vietman, or Panama, Grenada or even Cuba.

What you are saying is BS.

Really? What part?

U.S. interest are Canadian interest that are reflected in a higher ratio of exports, which are about as high as you possibly can go as seen from a Canadian perspective.

So you are suggesting what? That we have sold our souls for mere gold and riches, and are now beholding to a foreign power because of economic inferiority?

Why should Canada continue to see the net benefits of U.S. foreign interest, when Canada shys away from the U.S. as a true aly and one that is very dependent on the continuing success of U.S. military operations.

Obviously you worship a capitalistic God. I could guess that you have a mortgage on your home. So why shouldn't the holder of that mortgage be able to compell you to take a lesser paying job and rewrite the terms of your loan to make you pay them higher rates of interest spread over a longer time that would see your payments lowered but stretched into the lifetimes of your children? Further to that point why should the corporations near your home, who probably employ and/or your family and friends be able to put a chemical plant in the school yard where your children attend and a hazardous waste plant in your back yard? Are you not in debt to them for your employment and therefore would it not well behoove you to grant them this small favour in return for your continued employment?

Please think carefully about political obligations and international implications in terms of the responsibility of our own government to effect the will of the people through democratic process.

I don't think we have shyed away from the United States at all. We are indeed involved in Afganistan, that was an act of friendship to the United States that was a direct result of the 911 terror attack. We have stood beside the United States for decades, and have helped them numerous times. I see no reason to change that. What I am suggesting is that Canada assume a role of public neutrality in international affairs. We should take no side in international conflict, outside of self defense on our own soil. I suggest that we forego aggression and begin to work towards an enlightened international agenda of peaceful coexistence. We could simply not conduct diplomatic relations with nations pursuing acts of international aggression or internal abuse of citizens. I suggest that we reject relations with countries that have agendas that are in conflict with our own.

[Leafless]

I don't think we have shyed away from the United States at all. We are indeed involved in Afganistan, that was an act of friendship to the United States that was a direct result of the 911 terror attack. We have stood beside the United States for decades, and have helped them numerous times. I see no reason to change that. What I am suggesting is that Canada assume a role of public neutrality in international affairs. We should take no side in international conflict, outside of self defense on our own soil. I suggest that we forego aggression and begin to work towards an enlightened international agenda of peaceful coexistence. We could simply not conduct diplomatic relations with nations pursuing acts of international aggression or internal abuse of citizens. I suggest that we reject relations with countries that have agendas that are in conflict with our own.

We were involved in Afghanistan originally as part of NATO as peacekeepers and only progressed to more of a necessary combat role because of the Conservatives, who at the same time are desperately trying to partially revive Canada's near non existent military because of years of Liberal abuse and underfunding.

Our potential combat role in Iraq was rejected by Chretien, who rode the fence on the issue, although the Liberal stance had earned him brownie points with France and Germany.

Your idea of enlightened international agenda of peaceful coexistence is right out of the pages of some fairy tale. You only have to look at Canada and its forced version of a constitution that forces Canadians to accept funding the political aspirations and welfare of certain identified groups at the expense of an unidentified majority with no democratic voice. Only in Canada would something this nonsensical be accepted, temporally anyways.

Your suggestion that we reject relations with countries that have agendas that conflict with our own, raises an interesting question. What exactly are Canada's agendas, pertaining to whatever agendas you are talking about?

[Wilber]

It's interesting that Canadians can be critical of American isolationism keeping them out of the World Wars for so long, yet advocate Canada doing the same thing. Somehow I don't see pulling the covers over our head and ignoring what goes on in the rest of the world as a Canadian "Achievement". Also, neutral countries are forced to maintain a strong military to ensure their security, because they have no allies.

[Jean_Poutine]

Did Mr. Harper even care about this when he sent our troops into active combate changing the original mandate there.

Repeating something that is false does not make it true. The Liberals deployed the troops to Kandahar not the Conservatives. If anything changed, it was when the Liberals made that decision. If you have any understanding of the significance of Kandahar, you wouldn't expect a troop deployment there to be a peace keeping mission, and indeed, the Liberals knew full well in advance that it would mean getting more involved in combat. Having said that, Afghanistan was never a peace keeping mission. According to General James Jones, the NATO commander that was in control, Afghanistan is a "Chapter 7 peace enforcement mission". There is a big difference between peace keeping and peace enforcement. With a peace enforcement mandate, neutrality isn't necessary, you don't have to be welcome by all parties involved in the conflict, and you can get involved in combat beyond basic self-defense. So no, the mandate did not change.

[Keepitsimple]

Times change and our goverment has reflected the sentiments of its citizens. We have changed as well, because 911 really did change things. America, our greatest ally, finds itself at war and we are compelled to stand with them to a large degree.

The entire world is becoming polarized and there are choices to be made by all nations. Unfortunately the citizens of Canada have not seen fit to examine the options carefully and have taken the least path of resistance. Its not an issue of us or them as we have been lead to believe by weak minded political opportunists, but instead it is a question of a much more profound implication. The problem lays buried in international political intrique surrounded by no less than the power of economics and religion. While it has been said that terrorism threatens our society the reality is that if our society threatens their society then terrorism is the tool of choice for a society much less affluent than ours. It is a tactic that can be used to leverage our own citizens against our governments in order to attain a political objective. It has and still is working in favour of the terrorists. That is why this particular tool of warfare was chosen by those in position to do so.

The simple reality is that Canada has no place in this war, nor should it. Our nation has another alternative available to it should it have the fortitude to do so. We can choose the path of nuetrality and take no side in the events of violence which take the lives of citizens. The choice needs to be made by the citizens of this nation. I do not suggest that we forego our own defense, merely that we forego acts of aggression outside of our own borders.

I'm relieved to see there are not many supporters of your position. I think you might want to consider moving to Switzerland. More and more, people are reluctantly finding out that you have to take a principled stand on terrorism. The reason is that with groups like Al Quaeda and the Taliban, there is no room for negotiation, no room for human rights or fair play - death is a reward to them. You cannot appease them. Others, like Hezbollah and Hamas are not that far behind with their raison d'etre being the complete annihilation of Israel. I do believe however, that there is a miniscule bit of hope for these latter groups. Golda Meir once said "We will have peace with the Arabs when they will love their children more than they hate us".

[jbg]

What I am suggesting is that Canada assume a role of public neutrality in international affairs. We should take no side in international conflict, outside of self defense on our own soil. I suggest that we forego aggression and begin to work towards an enlightened international agenda of peaceful coexistence. We could simply not conduct diplomatic relations with nations pursuing acts of international aggression or internal abuse of citizens. I suggest that we reject relations with countries that have agendas that are in conflict with our own.

What a steaming load!!!

Why should the US undertake the burdens of maintaining the peace, safety and tranquility of the West if its allies are "publicly neutral". Protecting freedom must not make the US a pariah state.

[jbg]

Others, like Hezbollah and Hamas are not that far behind with their raison d'etre being the complete annihilation of Israel. I do believe however, that there is a miniscule bit of hope for these latter groups.

It's a distinction without a difference. A lot like the so-called "Provisional Wing" of the IRA.

Golda Meir once said "We will have peace with the Arabs when they will love their children more than they hate us".

Read my signature. The story of the binding of Isaac discloses that we love our children; the neighboring people see their children as an agent of death.

[tml12]

What I am suggesting is that Canada assume a role of public neutrality in international affairs. We should take no side in international conflict, outside of self defense on our own soil. I suggest that we forego aggression and begin to work towards an enlightened international agenda of peaceful coexistence. We could simply not conduct diplomatic relations with nations pursuing acts of international aggression or internal abuse of citizens. I suggest that we reject relations with countries that have agendas that are in conflict with our own.

What a steaming load!!!

Why should the US undertake the burdens of maintaining the peace, safety and tranquility of the West if its allies are "publicly neutral". Protecting freedom must not make the US a pariah state.

Welcome to the frustrations we in the Canadian right-wing movement have in dealing with our leftist Canadian friends.

[geoffrey]

Peaceful co-existence can't work in a world containing Islamic extremists that have a goal of destroying Western culture (and taking back Spain in the Taliban's case...).

[jbg]

Welcome to the frustrations we in the Canadian right-wing movement have in dealing with our leftist Canadian friends.

Easy for the left-wing friends when your defense is provided by a benevolent, peaceful neighbor. Those statements (that you quoted, not what you wrote) remind me of the posture of a rebellious 16 year old who can solve the world's problems and be quite independent, with their parents' money.

[Who's Doing What?]

You people making this out to be a Left vs. Right thing are cracked. This is not a partisan issue. The more you try to portay it as such, the more foolish you look.

[tml12]

You people making this out to be a Left vs. Right thing are cracked. This is not a partisan issue. The more you try to portay it as such, the more foolish you look.

It's not partisan, you're right. Only the Liberals are pulling out the "peacekeeping" card when historically Canada has not been known to play such a role.

[Who's Doing What?]

You people making this out to be a Left vs. Right thing are cracked. This is not a partisan issue. The more you try to portay it as such, the more foolish you look.

It's not partisan, you're right. Only the Liberals are pulling out the "peacekeeping" card when historically Canada has not been known to play such a role.

Are you saying Canada has not been known for Peacekeeping?

[tml12]

You people making this out to be a Left vs. Right thing are cracked. This is not a partisan issue. The more you try to portay it as such, the more foolish you look.

It's not partisan, you're right. Only the Liberals are pulling out the "peacekeeping" card when historically Canada has not been known to play such a role.

Are you saying Canada has not been known for Peacekeeping?

Based on how it is taught to Canadians in school, one would think Canada ranked in the top ten for world peacekeeping. Instead, Canada ranks 51st in the world.

Canada's efforts in WWI, WWII, and Korea are "downplayed" and trumped by Pearson at the Suez Crisis and Trudeau at Vietnam.

Perhaps you should check out this link as it pretty much flies in the face of the Liberal myth of Canada:

http://dominion.ca/americanmyths/11-12-05-granatstein.pdf

[Who's Doing What?]

Based on how it is taught to Canadians in school, one would think Canada ranked in the top ten for world peacekeeping. Instead, Canada ranks 51st in the world.

Canada's efforts in WWI, WWII, and Korea are "downplayed" and trumped by Pearson at the Suez Crisis and Trudeau at Vietnam.

Perhaps you should check out this link as it pretty much flies in the face of the Liberal myth of Canada:

http://dominion.ca/americanmyths/11-12-05-granatstein.pdf

So what?

Anyone with eyes can see the Americans have been the ones spending billions on their military while Canada has reduced theirs. Have we had a free ride? Sure, maybe.

It still does not eliminate the fact that Canada has been involved in peacekeeping around the world. Why you would ignore the sacrifices made those men and women and trivialize it as some "Liberal myth" is unfathomable.

[Keepitsimple]

It doesn't have to be Left vs. Right but what can you do when members of the Left blindly say "we should be Peacekeepers". We did do a reasonable job but that's history. In most parts of the world, there is no peace to keep.....so our role is to be peace-makers. It's dirty work - and most of us would strongly prefer that we didn't have to be in the midst of such fighting - but when you are facing an unprincipled enemy, it's either create security for the oppressed or go home and let the "bad guys" have their way. I hope that one day, there will be a role for Peacekeepers but that day does not appear to be coming soon. In the meantime, we should be proud of our volunteer military who believe so deeply in what they are doing in Afghanistan.

[tml12]

Based on how it is taught to Canadians in school, one would think Canada ranked in the top ten for world peacekeeping. Instead, Canada ranks 51st in the world.

Canada's efforts in WWI, WWII, and Korea are "downplayed" and trumped by Pearson at the Suez Crisis and Trudeau at Vietnam.

Perhaps you should check out this link as it pretty much flies in the face of the Liberal myth of Canada:

http://dominion.ca/americanmyths/11-12-05-granatstein.pdf

So what?

Anyone with eyes can see the Americans have been the ones spending billions on their military while Canada has reduced theirs. Have we had a free ride? Sure, maybe.

It still does not eliminate the fact that Canada has been involved in peacekeeping around the world. Why you would ignore the sacrifices made those men and women and trivialize it as some "Liberal myth" is unfathomable.

I do not ignore the sacrifices that anyone has made in any role and it is unfathomable to me that would conclude that based on my posts.

If anyone is doing the unfathomable it is the Liberal establishment in this country who would have us forget the brave COMBAT sacrifices that our soldiers made in WWI, WWII, and Korea. Those wars are downplayed now in our politically correct society. Now our soldiers in Afghanistan are again doing combat work and the Liberals say "we don't do combat work, we mediate peace." I call bullshit. Canada has historically been a country with a combative military history. Of course I credit those who have gone overseas in the name of peace but those individuals should not be remembered as being better than those who went overseas to fight combatively for our freedom.

Remember in the early 90s when CBC aired that program "The Valour and the Horror" portraying our combative WWII veterans as vicious for killing civilians during WWII? The WWII veterans were naturally outraged at how they were portrayed in the film and, in suing for libel, challenged the "accepted" truth that Canada is a peacekeeper.

Of course Canada has peacekeepers. The U.S. has peacekeepers, so does Israel, and other countries you might not think of. A country should appreciate its peacekeepers but not any more than it appreciates its combat soldiers.

I should add: Canada is free-riding off the U.S. for defense and it is only a matter of time, I think, before the U.S. might want a bit more in return for its service.

[tml12]

It doesn't have to be Left vs. Right but what can you do when members of the Left blindly say "we should be Peacekeepers". We did do a reasonable job but that's history. In most parts of the world, there is no peace to keep.....so our role is to be peace-makers. It's dirty work - and most of us would strongly prefer that we didn't have to be in the midst of such fighting - but when you are facing an unprincipled enemy, it's either create security for the oppressed or go home and let the "bad guys" have their way. I hope that one day, there will be a role for Peacekeepers but that day does not appear to be coming soon. In the meantime, we should be proud of our volunteer military who believe so deeply in what they are doing in Afghanistan.

Yes...well put.

[jbg]

I should add: Canada is free-riding off the U.S. for defense and it is only a matter of time, I think, before the U.S. might want a bit more in return for its service.

I doubt it. More likely, Canada may just not be consulted as much. Think Bush's visits to Ottawa during the Chretien era.