At the Belmont Club, a lengthy list of the close calls INIFIL had already suffered due to their proximity with Hezbollah installations;
All the incidents of IDF fire reported in the press releases are clearly related to some kind of nearby combat with the Hezbollah. In one case the IDF fired on a village into which the UNIFIL had gone, but rockets had originated from the vicinity of the village prior. In another case, an Israeli aerial bombardment detonated mines all around a UNIFIL position. Those mines were presumably not planted by UNIFIL, but they were so close to it that the UN position caught fire. The UN observation post in Maroun al-Ras was hit by artillery, but we know from press reports that Maroun al-Ras was the epicenter of heavy fighting and the location of a Hezbollah bunker complex. The UN even ran a convoy from the Hezbollah “capital” of Bint Jubayl to another area. Bint Jubayl is well known to be the target of an IDF attack. Yet the UN felt that it was possible to move convoys through such areas, albeit at considerable danger.
One reason that they could was that UNIFIL was evidently in contact with the IDF. In a sentence which speaks volumes we learn that “One unarmed UN military observer, a member of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), was seriously wounded by small arms fire in the patrol base in the Marun Al Ras area yesterday afternoon. According to preliminary reports, the fire originated from the Hezbollah side during an exchange with the IDF. He was evacuated by the UN to the Israeli side, from where he was taken by an IDF ambulance helicopter to a hospital in Haifa.” This strongly implies that UNFIL was able to coordinate their movements with the IDF and that the IDF was willing to risk men and aircraft to help UNFIL.
Now a lot will be made of UN positions being “clearly marked”. However nearly all of the fire reported on UN positions with the exception of the July 23 indicident in Kiyam, where the 4 UN observers were killed today, were from artillery, which is an area weapon. Artillery, depending on the angle and range from which it is fired, has a certain dispersion even allowing for crew perfection. (In contrast UNIFIL took small arms fire from the Hezbollah between Kunin and Bint Jubayl and small arms can only be used when visual contact is made). Imperfections in shell manufacture, operator error, barrel wear etc can cause an artillery round to fall off target. It is not called an area weapon for nothing.
[…]
Their positions are manifestly so close to the Hezbollah; their convoys so at risk at being confused with mobile Hezbollah forces that only by the grace of God and the accuracy of the IDF have fatalities been avoided until now. They were willing to take the risk. Annan was willing to make the hay.You be the judge of Kofi Annan’s competence both in the care of his men and with respect to the accusation he has made against the IDF.
An interview with Lew McKenzie has more. (ram file) – an exerpt;
We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.
.
Henry:
Agreed. Are they happening, or are you hoping?
Obviously your sleep has been sound:
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=125&id=4624&t=Israeli+missiles+hit+Red+Cross+ambulances
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1692091.htm
There’s lots more, but you have to wakey-wakey and have a little coffee first.
…sorry: might yet happen
Mark Collins,
I completely agree with the Senator. I certainly think Canada has squandered its position as a “helpful fixer/honest broker”. And to be quite honest I am an active critic of Canadian Foreign policy.
“The senator said the idea of Canada as an “honest broker” mediating international conflicts is a mirage, simply because no country or world body is ever asking the country to take on that role.”
This only tells half the truth. While Canada isnt being sought out to mediate between warring nations, Canada is working on such initiatives as R2P – Responsibility to Protect. Canada is working alongside Australia on this particular project and it is fast gaining ground. Of course its got a long way to go, but I think its important that the World consider this because it opens the door to removing autocracies – somehting I feel is long overdue.
When you think about it, only a country like Canada, with few if any identifiable vested interests can propose such a venture and have it taken seriously. We all know what the world thinks about the same proposal from Bush or Blairs mouth. Therein lies the key. Many Canadian Foreign Policy achievements have gone virtually unnoticed, but that doesnt mean that they dont exist. The Senator is being a tad bit harsher than is neccessary.
“Mr. Kenny, chairman of the Senate’s national security and defence committee, also said Canada needs military assets if it wants a voice in global conflicts. Decades of government neglect of the Canadian Forces meant Canada’s forays into foreign affairs have rarely had any teeth, he said.”
See now this is a trick question. The only concievable “threat” we have is the United States. We dont have the resources to match them. Is there any point to maintaining a large military? What will the military do? What would give us teeth – a couple of Aircraft Carrier task forces? Do you know how much that would cost? Its easy to say that Canada doesnt have a strong military, but what purpose will it achieve. Who are we going to threaten with the military? And how is the military going to get there?
Besides, what military is large enough? And where will the money come from? Canada spends 11 billion and was the 13th highest spender in terms of military budgets.
“For years, Canada has tried to have a foreign policy without having a defence policy, and (past governments) wondered why no one gives a damn about what we think,” he said.’
In all fairness, no one gives a damn about what any country thinks if you re not the US, UK, China, Russia, sometimes France, and in more recent times, India Brazil and South Africa. Canada never had the resources and its unlikely that it ever will. For this line of thinking to work, one would have to have mobile task forces. And its not possible
See the post above yours Dawg, dampen the ghoulish glee, and answer the two questions.
Henry
“Is this clear? And do we agree?”
Yeah we do.
Dr. Dawg, apology accepted. You must be a lot younger than I am not to know that expression!
From this blog both you and I have learned something today…thanks, Kate!
Henry:
There’s no talking to the “Israel can do no wrong” crowd. They’re saints–angels. They’re above reproach. They never kill civilians. Everything is an accident.
Sleep well. Not that you’ve wakened up recently.
Middleton,
Then like all reasonable people, we just had to keep talking. The urge to hold people accountable is a good one; run with it.
As to your remark to Mark (forgive the pun), Canada does have military capability worth considering (JTF2 are my neighbours), and economics are a military weapon too. While the USA is the only present “threat” (for a given definition of threat), it was not that long ago that the USSR presented a much more worrying one. And please do not discount Denmark. No, I do not jest. What prevents nations from claiming isolated real estate that they covet if not the fear of reprisal/escalation? I give you the Falkland Islands as a case in point.
I think you have presented well the most reasonable sort of position in this debate, Henry. I’m happy to have you on the same side as me in this debate.
Yes Henry very good posts!
I am so fed up with the simpleton notions of Canada as a “honest broker” or the BS of “our traditional role being neutral”
(or the big lie that we can’t afford a decent military)
I’d rather people see Canada as being the nation that supports what is right. And uses its muscle to support it.
Supporting Israel is right. Fighting terrorists is right.
Hezbollah not only was obligated to disarm but disband. Before anyone starts smacking the Israeli’s, there’s a long list of others that come before Israel.
Switching back again, Canada -is- one of the richest nations on this planet. We may not have the largest population but that is hardly an excuse for the usual defeatist “we’re so small” bleating. We act like sheep and so we are viewed as sheep. What a connection!
We can afford a larger army and a more vigourous navy and a well-equipped air force.
We’re spending how much every year in interest payments on the Trudeau/Chretien/Lalonde debt?
If we had the military that we should have, we would have more clout.
(We should also have a more vigorous space program, but that’s another story.)
“In reference to an earlier post about Canadians reporting to Romeo Dallaire.The retired General was appointed to the Senate last year by Paul Martin and sits as a Liberal Senator, so i don’t think it is him they report to”
That’s EXACTLY why I said what I did.
Well, it didn’t work!
There’s plenty of blame to go around.
1. Hezbollah. They’ve been masquerading as UN observers, siting themselves close to UN positions, deliberately trying to draw fire onto UN positions and generally tried to provoke such an incident, not to mention started this whole mess;
2. The UN. Once the war started, exactly what were the UN observers supposed to be observing? — CNN? — to know that there was a war on? — fall of shot? — “left 150 drop 50, fire for effect”? Why the h@%# didn’t the UN pull the observers out once the shooting started (if feasible)? What were they supposed to “report” — “There’s a war on and oh, by the way, they’re trying to kill each other.”
3. The IDF — If there was concentrated artillery landing then there was a Forward Observation Officer (FOO) and if there was a FOO, there was a Forward Air Controller (FAC), or should have been. Shouldn’t he have informed the pilot that there was a strategically sensitive position that was definitely not to be hit? With GPS and air recce photos, shouldn’t the pilot have been aware of the UN position when coming in on his bomb run? I suspect at least one IDF junior officer’s ears are ringing tonight, (and not from artillery fire) for having given Israel a diplomatic headache it didn’t need.
4. Canada. We’ve pulled our troops out of UN observer forces in the past (ICCS Vietnam) for the simple reason we’re not mediaeval Heralds i.e. we don’t observe wars. Perhaps we could have been a bit quicker off the mark with this one too.
There’s questions still to be answered esp: was it an errant 155 round? I rather doubt a UN OP would have the overhead protection (OHP) to withstand a direct hit. Or was it a “bunker buster” bomb? In which case even a near miss would create a big enough crater to take out the UN OP. Did the bomb hit a bunker complex with subsequent secondary explosions from stored munitions that ultimately destroyed the OP?
The only heroes in this episode are the brave men who stayed at their post and have paid with their lives. God bless them.
To add to Robert in Calgary; I came across a T.O. Star link at Bourque: What Canada should do: Part I by Alan Baker – Isreal’s Ambassador to Canada. A very good comment on what we should be doing, with whom and why.
O/T also a good link about China threatening Canada over Dalai Lama.
Five Myths That Sanction Israel’s War Crimes
“The first myth is that Israel was forced to pound Lebanon with its military hardware because Hezbollah began “raining down” rockets on the Galilee.
The second myth is that Hezbollah’s stockpile of 12,000 rockets – the Israeli army’s estimate – poses an existential threat to Israel.
The third myth is that, while Israel is trying to fight a clean war by targeting only terrorists, Hezbollah prefers to bring death and destruction on innocents by firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
The fourth myth is a continuation of the third: Hezbollah has been endangering the lives of ordinary Lebanese by hiding among noncombatants.”
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9407
DrD
The latest report I’ve seen says the bunker was ultimately engaged by a missile.
Middleton > “I did say that the UN gives Canada an opportunity to punch above her weight. And win some respect globally. Its easier being a Canadian traveller than an American one. For good reason.”
I’m sure Middleton is sincere in his beliefs but these are typical left/Liberal conceits and delusions about Canada’s international performance and reputation.
”Being geographically huge and low in population Canada can’t effectively defend herself using her own resources. That’s why Canadian strategy has been to join in alliances with other democracies for mutual defense. Alliances such as NATO, NORAD and AUSCANUKUS have given Canada superb security. Unfortunately, successive Liberal governments since Lester Pearson have steadily cut defense spending (reaching its lowest ebb under commie sympathizing Pierre Trudeau). So, except for a brief boost under Brian Mulroney, Canada has punched well below its weight with per capita defense spending consistently near the bottom of the pack for the past 40 years.
As for “the UN giving Canada an opportunity”: Maybe so, but Canada under the Liberals, we have completely squandered it. The left/Lib admiration for the UN and their conceits concerning Canada’s contributions and reputation are largely hot air. At last count Canada placed around 30th in its actual contribution to UN peacekeeping. So much for “winning …respect globally”. [not that the UN is worth supporting]
”It’s easier being a Canadian traveller than an American one.” Perhaps but this has more to do with America’s superpower status and wealth than with Canada’s sterling reputation. America is a target for anyone with a gripe (including, unfortunately, too many Canadians).
Canada punched above her weight in WWI and WWII. It earned respect in the early days of the UN. It can regain it’s long lost reputation only if it once again starts to put its money where its mouth has been. Harper has made a start.
Dr. Dawg,
that’s a really interesting link you’ve provided. Full of emotion, horror, dismay, sadness and more. But very short on facts. The kind of article that pulls on people’s emotional heartstrings. It stops them from thinking, and lets their emotions dictate their responses. Not good at all when trying to make an informed decision. It’s the kind of story you use when you can’t justify a position on facts, so you play to people’s emotions. This link provides a much better source of information: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010656
Specifically, from the article:
“Reporters said the Israelis kept firing for nearly half an hour after being told they had mistakenly hit a UN post. Apparently they were aiming for sites 300 m away, from which Hizbollah had just been launching Katyushas.”
Yes, that’s right. Hizbollah, the great instigator of violence, launching their Katyushas at Israeli citizens from a site only 300m away from the UN refugee site. Israel, trying to defend their citizens, returns fire. As sorry as I am that so many innocent civilians died, it does not change the fact that the ultimate responsibility for their deaths lies with Hizbollah. Israel does not launch unprovoked attacks on civilians, Hizbollah does. Period!
JR
Who was Prime Minister when Canada first fought in Afghanistan under US command ?
Who was Prime Minister when Canada commited to the mission in Kandahar?
Cheers
I think it’s time to add the word “racist” to the spam filter. It’s become completely meaningless. On one thread I’m accused of racism for criticizing the content of an email written by a person whose name is not given, and now it’s teakettles.
Good grief – no wonder we don’t take the left seriously. You are completely and utterly unserious people.
If it is the case that the Lebanese government cannot control Hezbolah and this terrorist outfit if allowed to rule the land, then just maybe they do rule the land. If that is the case just maybe Israel should state that they recognize that Hezbolah are the actual rulers of Lebanon and declare war against that country.
Think about it. Isn’t that what is actually happening and no one is willing to say it. The Lebanese government is completely powerless. The Hezbolah is running roughshod over the entire country. Who is stopping them? Who is capable of stopping them? Certainly not the government of Lebanon. Any way you look at it this is a war between Israel and Lebanon.
JR
Let me put it this way. I dont feel half as uncomfortable as my American travelling companions, and for the most part no one has any gripes with Canada.
“America is a target for anyone with a gripe”
Perhaps its because Canada has a lot less to be ashamed of than America. I dont think you d disagree unless you re blinded by the Star Spangled banner. We dont have Vietnam, we havent used nukes, we dont support Arab monarchies to keep the oil supply going, we didnt put money in the coffers of Osama bin Laden during his little Jihad on the Soviets, we didnt support contras, we didnt assasinate a democratically elected leader and replace him with a military dictator who is now facing trial for HR abuses (Pinochet)…the list goes on.
Its really up to you as to whether or not you want to admit that America has blood on its hands, and while we have plenty to be ashamed about – interning the Japanese during the Second World War, or sending back Sikh immigrants, we have not attacked another nation. Americans may have forgotten that Rumsfeld had his picture taken shaking hands with Saddam. The world, including Canada, has a stronger memory.
We do not have a history to be ashamed of.
Middletom I think you have been looking at the liberano version of history instead of the real thing. Try taking your head out of your ass and study some real truths.
Additional to my last point-form meanderings and link to Satan’s brood :
What is happening!!!?? A’m I not a child of the universe or have I lost my mind?? Why does all this make me want to jerk off into the Sears catalog? Is this really happening to me??!! I want my CBC!!! Peter save me!!!!!111
Middleton, why whould the Americans need to be ashamed of their history? When the French decided that they didn’t have the stomach to fight a war against a communist faction in Vietnam, they turned and fled, abandoning the majority of Vietnamese who didn’t want communism. The US stepped in and tried to help. Pressure on the home front from the “no war/not our war” crowd resulted in a weakening of resolve, a decrease in effort, and eventually a complete withdrawal. Do you know how many MILLIONS were murdered in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos once the US withdrew? The US was one of the few countries to battle communism throughout the world! Who else stood up and defended freedom 24/7? Nobody!
Ashamed they dropped the atomic bomb on Japan? They shouldn’t be. Japan was tactically defeated, yet refused to give up the fight. Months of massive bombing raids did nothing to change that. It took TWO atomic bombs being dropped on Japan before they finally surrendered. Did you know that there were more civilians killed in the last month of bombing Germany than in the two atom bombs being dropped on Japan?
The fact is, the United States are the primary defenders of freedom in the world. It’s been that way since the end of WW2. Unfortunately, the world has no shortage of tyrants and evildoers for them to deal with, and it’s always the US that has to do the dirty work. Sometimes it doesn’t work out nicely, and sometimes they screw up. But they are trying to do GOOD. All the critics who think they could do so much better should shut up and actually try and do it. But of course, they’d find out it’s not so easy, fail miserably, and go back to bitching about “those American bastards”.
pete, THANK YOU!
250 Hizbollah killed in Bint Jbail in door-to-door, face-to-face fighting. An entire block of fundamenatist zombies in Tyre rased with precision accuracy. The UN exposed for what it is. The Prime Minister personally challenging Kofi Annan to defend Canada’s smackdown indictment of malfeasance.
Besides the Canada-Russia ’72 win, so far, knock on wood, this has got to be the greatest day in my life as a Canadian.
Oh… btw… Go Israel. Rollin down the King’s Highway.
Sadly, it does now appear that the Canadian officer killed in the IDF attack at Khiam was Maj Paeta Hess-von Kruederer.
Fatefully, he had sent an email to CTV News which was published on their website (it’s still there). I provide for your consideration (without further comment), his own words about IDF targeting:
“What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.”
Thanks from me, too, pete, for your defence of the U.S.A. after Middleton gratuituously repeats ad nauseum left/lib Canadians’ views of our neighbour to the South.
I’m a Canadian who deeply appreciates the role the U.S. has played and continues to play in defending democratic freedoms on the world stage. Sure they make mistakes and aren’t all-knowing and all-wise. They’re human, after all. But as defenders of humanity–just look who’s the first into areas devastated by natural disasters (Canada shows up weeks later, limping in on outdated and/or borrowed equipment)–they’re courageous, risk-takers and they’re THERE.
Where are we Canadians, until recently? Snoozing in the House of Commons and when we finally rouse ourselves from our slumbers, dissing Americans and their President:
“moron,” “bastard,” yada, yada.
I wonder if Middleton is one of the Canadian travellers I encountered in Europe back in the early ’70s, smugly flaunting the Canadian flag they’d sewn onto their backpacks?
I finally took the flag off my backpack to face the world as an individual not “a Canadian.” And my chief motivation was the smugness of too many of my compatriots, many of whom were boring (“Trudeau’s cool”) and crass, as compared to the many Americans I hitch hiked with who were, almost universally, better informed and a heck of a lot more fun.
I’ve always maintained that it’s hard to have an elephant as a neighbour when you’re a mouse. But the truth of the matter is, I’d far rather have the U.S. of A. as my neighbour than any other nation on earth.
Quit your complaining and moaning and groaning, Middleton. And quit your gloating about Canada and all of our accomplishments. We used to more than pull our weight globally, but have been reduced under the Libranos to creating a fantasy land known as Canada, where the humans are kinder, the grass is greener, and God and morality are gleefully trampled underfoot every day. Did you know, BTW, that the suicide rate of Canadian teenagers is the highest of any developed country? Now THAT’S an accomplishment, eh?
New Kid:
Many thanks for accepting my apology. It’s not my usual practice to toss labels like that around so carelessly: I suspect the uncritical pro-Israel commentary here put me on edge. In any case, I am profoundly embarrassed. And Kate will never let me forget it. 🙂
Dave M.:
Thanks for the link.
“When the French decided that they didn’t have the stomach to fight a war against a communist faction in Vietnam, they turned and fled, abandoning the majority of Vietnamese who didn’t want communism. The US stepped in and tried to help.” – Pete at July 27, 2006 02:34 AM
It is easy to be the greatest nation on earth if you can get people to believe and propogate such a perversion of history. Do you have to give up your membership in homo sapiens to become a neo-con, or only your critical faculties?
I think we’re all missing the point.
Iran has successfully pulled the old, “Hey! Look over there!” gag using Hezbollah to distract the world from their nuclear weapons program.
Well, successfully in regards to our short media-attention spans but I’m sure the Israelis, Yanks, Brits, Saudis and many others are still observing rather closely.
From an editorial in today’s National Post:
“Mr. Annan’s comment [“that the Israeli attack on the UN was ‘apparently deliberate.'”] is appalling: Unlike Israel’s military strike, it was not made amid the confusion and stress of war, but in an air-conditioned office on Manhattan’s east side. Moreover, it now seems that the Secretary-General made his remarks in complete ignorance of circumstances on the ground. According to a blog maintained by the deceased Canadian peacekeeper, reported on in today’s Post, Hezbollah maintained an active presence in the immediate vicinity of the UN base. Israeli troops tracking incoming Hezbollah fire may well have identified the building itself as the source of mortars or rockets.”
The NP editorial suggests that Annan owes Israel an apology “for this baseless smear.” I’d like to second that.
But what are the chances Kofi Annan will apologize? As the Secretary-General of the U.N., he probably sees himself as “above politics,” which would be a convenient side-step for his silence on this issue after having lobbed a drive-by slander at the Israelis. Leftist double standard? Doesn’t know his a** from a teakettle? Whatever the case, Annan is a disgrace to his office and needs to be replaced pronto.
From an article by Joel Kom, with files from Steven Edwards, CanWest News Service, The Ottawa Citizen, Thursday, July 27, 2006:
“The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a ‘shield’ to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.
“Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post — which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces — was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.
“The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area.
“Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics.
“‘What I can tell you is this,’ he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. ‘We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.
“‘The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity.'”
The Canadian soldier who was killed has made it clear that the U.N. post was not being deliberately targeted, which should go some way in silencing vocal and ofttimes malicious critics of Israeli forces.
Hahahaha. I love the way you people can spin Canadian boys being killed into propaganda, Goebbels would have been proud of you. Back the army until they put themselves between the combatants, how COULD a UN mission do such a sleezy thing. When one side is fighting from the air and the other from the ground, everyone KNOWS they should have wings and thus a precisely equal distance between the sides…BAD army…die die die.
It wasn’t an arty round that hit them either, but a “precision guided missile”. Margin of error what? 11 times the IDF was called to be asked to stop the bombardment – how is this a mistake PMSH? “UNIFIL has also come under direct attacks by small arms fire from Hezbollah.” Glad the previous poster pointed out that small arms fire is never a targeting mistake.
Nobody wins in war…whoever started it, whoever finished it. Right/wrong semantics are for Monday morning quarterbacks who know nothing of the facts. And screw you for justifying the death of our soldiers in any way shape or form, you traitors.
Let’s now see if Kofi takes action to move UN assets away from Hezb posts. If he doesn’t proactively intervene to move his people to positions where they cannot be used as shields by Hezb’allah, any harm to those people will be on his hands.
We’re going to find out quite soon just what kind of a man of action we have in Kofi Annan. By doing nothing, Kofi would simultaneously put lives at risk unnecessarily and risk what is left of the reputation of the UN. Maybe Kofi doesn’t realize that he has arrived at his tipping point.
“It wasn’t an arty round that hit them either, but a ‘precision guided missile’.”
Was it? How do you know?
Hey, arbee, deal with Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener’s own assessment of the situation, rather than hurling gratuitous insults at people who hold a different opinion from yours.
I am no traitor. My sympathies go out to the families of the dead U.N. observers, but even they were able to recognize that the Israelis weren’t deliberately attacking them, as alleged by Kofi Annan and…you, it would seem.
Just an observation: Every time someone on this blog offers incontrovertible evidence of a debating point, some leftie troll starts screaming blue murder about traitorous motives and Goebbels (you lose, right off the bat when you gratuitously bring Hitler or any of his crew into the argument).
The simple recognition of an indisputed fact and a reasoned response to said-indisputed fact would be a far more creative response than the usual, ho-hum, leftie rant. I’m unmoved.
If I m repeating ad nauseaum “ad nauseum left/lib Canadians’ views of our neighbour to the South”, then I daresay you repeat ad nauseum the views of the American right. You can justify ‘Nam and you can justify the nukes, but, well, it does undermine ones authority to tell others not to get nukes, especially when one has already used them.
Its very easy defending the US from here, but read the news sometime. The Doha talks between the 6 major trading powers – US EU Japan Russia India and Brazil collapsed because of American inflexibility. This is a country that goes around proclaiming free trade and then subsidises its farmers to the tune of billions. These things may be ignored here because pro-American sympathies are running particularly high, but they dont go down well with the rest of the world.
As for the yadee yadaa of America being defenders of freedom…hmmm. History reveals a whole different story, whether it is the US supporting Communist China and Military Pakistan against Democratic India in the war that released millions of Bangladeshis from massacre by the Pakistanis. Or Salvador Allende. Or selling weapons to mortal enemy Iran. Or the sheikhdoms such as Saudi Arabia which have survived largely because of US support. This whole freedom thing has always been secondary to short term strategic interests. Maybe its only the leftists who bring this up, but America has a way of saying one thing and doing quite another.
Tell me, do you support America on the Softwood Lumber issue too?
“…I daresay you repeat ad nauseum the views of the American right.” Excuse me, Middleton? I’m Canadian, so my views are Canadian views and have nothing to do witht the American right.
Why is it that lefties just can’t get it through their heads that if two people agree on something, it doesn’t mean that they are clones of one another and therefore can be branded with the same label?
I may agree with views which you label “the American right” but I can assure you that I have arrived at them right here in Canada–after I grew up. Yessirree. My views are CANADIAN views because I was born in Canada, am a Canadian living in Canada, have been educated in the Canadian education (sic) system, and pay Canadian taxes and Canadian tuitions for my Canadian kids to go to Canadian universities.
Enough Canadian credentials for you, Middleton? Could your labelling my views as “American right” have anything to do with my not agreeing with your views, the Libranos’/Dippers’, and the MSMs’ views?
I thought so.
New Kid,
“I wonder if Middleton is one of the Canadian travellers I encountered in Europe back in the early ’70s, smugly flaunting the Canadian flag they’d sewn onto their backpacks”
Wasnt around in the 70s. And dont hav a flag on my backpack. I do however think that backpack nationalism, if you will, is a whole lot better htan being blinded by your national flag.
“I’ve always maintained that it’s hard to have an elephant as a neighbour when you’re a mouse. But the truth of the matter is, I’d far rather have the U.S. of A. as my neighbour than any other nation on earth.”
You and Ann Coulter will get along very well. She also thinks of Canada as a mouse to roll over. I d rather have Australia as my neighbor. They re cool.
“And quit your gloating about Canada and all of our accomplishments. We used to more than pull our weight globally”
The more you say, the more you reveal about yourself. Did you know that Canada did not have a foreign policy of any sort till the 1920s. Or that Canada had all of 4 Diplomatic missions abroad when WW2 broke out- London Tokyo Washington and Paris.
Do you remember the Riddell Affair wherein the Canadian representative to the League was berated for daring to introduce the possibility of sanctions during the Italian attack on Ethiopia?
When exactly were teh glory years of Canadian Foreign policy. Certainly not before the Second World War. Certainly not during the Second World War – whn Mackenzie King would show up for photos with the Allied leaders, and avoid discussing anything with them.
Canada’s glory years came with the possibility of a multilateralist idealist institution called the UN that gave Canada an opportunity to participate in Intl Affairs. Peacekeeping. Decolonialisation. These were things we could play a part in.
Then the Cold War started and we became part of a camp. And the 1991 realignment has put the emphasis on rising powers. Theres been precious little time for glory. But we re also a nation without baggage. We can take a moralist/idealist stance without people raising their eyebrows – theres very few countries who can do this. Why shouldnt we take a moral stance instead of becoming American yes men.
“Did you know, BTW, that the suicide rate of Canadian teenagers is the highest of any developed country?”
Really? I thought that was Norway. At least thats what the newspapers in Oslo said back in 2005.
new kid, Middleton appears not to realize his method of debate has become very “American-style”.
“I may agree with views which you label “the American right” but I can assure you that I have arrived at them right here in Canada–after I grew up. Yessirree. My views are CANADIAN views because I was born in Canada, am a Canadian living in Canada, have been educated in the Canadian education (sic) system, and pay Canadian taxes and Canadian tuitions for my Canadian kids to go to Canadian universities.”
I never said that you re of the American right. I just said that you re likely to hear that line of thought from the American right. I m not a member of the Canadian left either- I ve always thought of myself as a centrist.
“We are a country without baggage”. i.e. Our diplomatic leverage is our purity. How arrogant. Same arrogance that makes me want to vomit when uttered by a member of the Librano gang.
Ask our pals manning the barricades in Caledonia how pure they think we are.
Diplomatic leverage is a mixture of economic clout, trade interdependency, military power and consistency in position (morals). Wishy-washy mamby-pamby in the name of purity does not equate to diplomatic leverage.
Tell me New Kid, and all the other Star Spangled banner flyers, who do you support in teh Softwood Lumber dispute?
I m actually genuinely surprised that we have so many Americans in waiting in this country. What is the deal with your support for America? If you re so enamoured by it, then why dont you just go there? I believe, and I dont know if its leftist or rightist, that your allegiance has to be first and foremost to the country whose citizenship you hold.
Theres Canadians here who accuse me of thinking too highly of Canada, but who leap to America’s defence the moment any criticism is offered? What is the deal with you folk? Do you really hate Canada? Or do you really love America?
I m a trained historian with a strong background in Canadian history. I know where this country is coming from. I ve also travelled enough to know what we should be greatful for. The truth is that this is one of the few places in teh world where you can do whatever you want to. And its reasonably safe. I am proud of Canada not because of what I ve learnt in books but because of what I ve seen with my own eyes.
Canada entered the second world war with a standard of living that we think of as third world. We ve come a long way since then.
My, my, my. Let’s quibble.
Your exact words, Middleton, were: “I daresay you repeat ad nauseum the views of the American right.” (If I knew how to highlight the latter part of this sentence I would: You’re a lot younger than I am, M, if you weren’t around in the ’70s: do you know how I can highlight stuff when posting to a blog?)
So you are IMPLYING that my views are “American right.” Right? My views are my own, and they are entirely Canadian. They’re the views that have resulted from increasing dismay at the inanity of so-called Liberal “Canadian values” (like radical feminism, abortion on demand, SSM, we’re kinder and gentler and more peaceful than the Americans, blah, blah, blah). I’m sick to death of left/lib sycophancy.
BTW, in answer to your statement “that backpack nationalism, if you will, is a whole lot better htan [sic] being blinded by your national flag”: backpack nationalism is exactly being blinded by your national flag. I didn’t find many Canadians brandishing our Maple Leaf with anything intelligent to say, simply that Canadians are better than Americans (show me!) and Trudeau is cool. Give me a break!
Yeah. I think the Aussies are cool, too. One of my daughter’s godparents is from Aussieland. They were great treckers in Europe back in the ’70s: fun to be with, full of common sense–well, most of the time except when they were drinking everyone else, and I mean EVERYONE ELSE!, under the table. Check out Australia’s policies, though; they’re far closer to the Americans’ than Canadians’ BEFORE HARPER. They’ve stood with the U.S.in the War on Terror, unlike us.
Which brings me to our more than pulling our weight in the global sphere. I was thinking about Canadian soldiers in WWI and WWII, including my two grandfathers and my father. They’d all be rolling over in their graves to see our cowardly stance against Islamofascism. BTW, PM Mackenzie King was a Liberal. What would you expect?
The moral stance I am taking has nothing to do with the Americans. The moral stance I am taking is one that I have arrived at on my own, through observation, careful thought and consideration, and taking into account my particular right/wrong and faith-based convictions.
Isn’t there a quotation that says something to the effect that all young people should be liberal but when you finally grow up you become increasingly conservative? Help on this, anyone?
Shaken,
There are people who want to change the world and make an effort – and sometimes they fail. And then there are people like you who call them all kinds of names while cynically refusing to do anything to change the world.
As far as morals go, the former have the high ground. You are the angry cynic who doesnt want anything to change because you re convinced it cant. But why not try?
Canada can try because it has a fairly clean slate. It can take up that moral position and call on other countries to aspire towards them without being charged with vested interests. I think its a whole lot better than sitting and sniggering at others who re trying to do the same. Bitterness never helped.
We have economic clout, we have trade interdependencey (or dependency – up to you). I dont think you will find any country as being consistent in position (morals). Countries are driven by national interest. And interests change over time. Morals and consistency are a myth.
Military, well, how are you planning to staff it. For the Canadian military to be of any value, it would have to be around 500,000 – 600,000 strong. Thats 1 out of every 60 Canadians. A lot harder than you d think.
And you accused me of being a Leftist, which I m not and certainly dont like being called. But its almost a moot point, minus your indignation.
But beyond that, you do raise some interesting points that I m inclined to agree with, and I m really not bothered enough to offer a point by point rebuttal.
So let me put it this way. You dont care for Liberal Canadian values. Fair enough. But what are Canadian values? Do they even exist? What do you think of this country?
You must be referring to my use of the term “Librano”. It was as polite a term as I could come up with. So what we have here is a defense of the Libranos.
Bitter about the Libranos? You bet I am. And I am doing everything I can to teach my soon-to-be-voting children what the Libranos have done to Canada. That’s my disgust multiplied by three. My duty as a Canadian.
Consistent in morals? Like hiding money behind unaccountable foundations? Where is that Tsunami money anyway? Like Oil for Food? Like brown paper envelopes? Like receiving donations from children? You mean those kind of morals?
“Give the Libranos a pass on their malfeasance – they meant well.”
Please, I need another bucket.