All Hail Canada, The Warrior Nation!

[Bragi]

What the great debate in Parliament last night demonstrated is that there isn't a political party in Parliament that officially opposes the decision of the Government of Canada -- now operationalized by two parties -- to join the Bush war machine in Afghanistan. Though 46 per cent of the population thinks this deployment to be a bad idea, no party represents their views. All parties agree with the 45 per cent who say our involvement is a good idea.

And so the wand of Bush the Uniter passes over the Great White North. New PM Stephen Harper, with the support of all parties, now stands with Bush (ostensibly) to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, and anyone else who doesn't support American war policies in the Middle East. And let's not forget that Canadian troops are now officially part of the US government's much-touted war on drugs, and are commited to helping the Americans eliminate poppy growing throughout the large, sparse, unregulated-by-Kabul regions and sitraps of Afghanistan that comprise the world's premier opium-based agricultural district. Yeah right, like that's going to happen.

Things being what they now are, it makes one wonder how likely is it that next time a Canadian is accidentally picked up by insurgents in a military operation somewhere in the Middle East, that they will be released unharmed because they are from a respected, non-combatant country? And sorry for asking, but since we now standing shoulder to shoulder with perceived global infamy, what exactly are we getting in exchange for doing this?

And what are antiwar Canadians supposed to do now? Are they supposed to focus on building grass-roots awareness and resistance at the community and street level, but give up on Parliament because the views of half the country don't show up in its debates?

Personally, I don't think that this would be the wisest choice. While the performance of Parliamentarians as antiwar spokespeople is dismal, the best course of action remains nurturing and amplifying whatever credible anti-war voices one can muster in and through the national stage that Parliament provides.

Having said that, the parallels with the US – where a large, anti-war constituency had almost no support from cowardly elected national politicians at the outset of Bush's warmongering career – the similarities are quite depressing. Anyone in Canada who thinks the Cons aren't on a roll, and aren't prepared to do all the social and political polarizing they need to do to get a majority in the next election, either isn't paying attention, or is whistling past the graveyard. I think it is time to acknowledge that Harper is smart, that he isn't going to self-destruct, that he does have a sizable and growing base of support, and that Canada as we have known it is in deep trouble.

- B

[SixStrings]

1. Jesus.

"What the great debate in Parliament last night demonstrated is that there isn't a political party in Parliament that officially opposes the decision of the Government of Canada -- now operationalized by two parties -- to join the Bush war machine in Afghanistan"

We didn't just 'join'. It was your Feuhrer and his corrupt Liberal party that put us into Afghanistan. Why was there no outrage about debating this decision back then???

"And what are antiwar Canadians supposed to do now? Are they supposed to focus on building grass-roots awareness and resistance at the community and street level, but give up on Parliament because the views of half the country don't show up in its debates?"

Where were these 'antiwar Canadians" while King Paul put us there? Only now, because a conservative is in power, are their views somehow more important, or somehow more accessible?

This is crazy.

Here's a pretty good summary, by the CBC, none the less. But let me guess people's responces: "Right wing media!", "Conservative bias!" It's funny how when the Liberals were in power the CBC was just "funded" by the gov't, but, and I can see it already, it won't be long until people start slamming the CBC for anything Pro-Harper, because they have a 'right wing agenda'. Watch and wait.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20060321.html

[MrPrax]

2. Good point...

But after we have 'blamed' both Liberals and Tories for throwing with the US war machine, why are we letting the NDP off the hook?

Read Layton's weasel speech...see anything in there that might even reflect any of the setiments of even the moderate 'pro-peace' crowd.

Let's face it--I understand WHY the Liberals and Tories take the position they do, as they have to LOOK like they can govern the country? The role of a Third Party is usually to bring 'issues' to the table that NO ONE else is willing to do.

It rather looks like the NDP will sleepwalk through another decade doing little than conning their aged PACs, spending their trusts and providing a career vehicle for it's 'annoited' elites.

I wish Layton would just go to the UN or run for Mayor...which is where he is headed eventually anyway and leave politics to those that can stomach a strong principle or moral committment that can't be sold by some stupid Yuppie 'Third Way' technocrat.

[Minstrel Boy]

7. Unhappily,

I agree with you about Layton. He's overmanaged by wonks who wanted to recast the NDP as Liberal Classic, and he seems quite happily locked into that. Even yesterday he was namedropping Pearson. You know what, Jack? Fuck Pearson. There was an NDP that saw good reason to contest elections against Pearson's Liberal Party.

While the Liberals rediscover those roots which Layton tries to graft onto the NDP, the NDP had better rediscover its own self. Unfortunately I don't think Jack could do that even if the task interested him.

[MrPrax]

12. I was ranting...

but thank you for providing tact and class.

The only thing I hate about being cynical, is being right, lately. ;-)

[V. Kid]

14. Seriously...

...people aren't trustworthy of politicians right now, perhaps if he'd actually not be such a wind-up doll with his corny catch phrases then people would trust him to the point of supporting the NDP in more significant numbers. You know he's smart enough to be passionate but measured, so I can't see why that's so difficult and why he has to rely on the catch phrases like a crutch. I geuss its just easier though.

[Minstrel Boy]

15. The damn thing is, he can be better than this.

He was my councillor for years. I stood with him at a bar watching the 2000 returns. He didn't become the Stepford candidate until he ran for the leadership, and it's gotten worse.

He needs to learn some new tricks, or better, unlearn the old ones, because he won't be facing Steamboat Paulie next time.

[Bragi]

13. Liberals and Afghanistan

SixStrings wrote:

It was your Feuhrer and his corrupt Liberal party that put us into Afghanistan. Why was there no outrage about debating this decision back then???

I was oppposed then, and remain opposed now. And as I've said here a dozen times already, I'm not a Liberal, and never have been. I do favour strategic voting to prevent Cons from getting elected. In my riding, this means voting Liberal.

- B

[glarius]

3. Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Hillier on Newsworld giving a Pentagon-like

talk!....What bullshit. He is saying things like "it's time Canadians appreciated our servicemen and women."....Canadians ARE proud of them and don't need scolding! Also he said "Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are the best equipped soldiers of any of the countries there!"...Hmmmm...how did that happen? Just a couple of months ago, before Harper became P.M. he was standing up in Question Period and complaining of the so-called inferior equipment of the Canadians. What a miraculous change, and in such a short time too! :sarcasm:

[MrPrax]

4. Hiller should be

given his walking papers--his arrogance and sense of purpose far far outstrips his role in the scheme of things.

[hopeisaplace]

16. yes, it's time for the government to stop using soldiers as "tools"

to get their agendas passed. It should be a violation of ethics for a political party to
make a statement like, "it's time Canadians appreciated our servicemen and women".
It's tossed around strictly for political gain (or the attempt at it)and it's completely
false. An offensive, offensive lie. I take exception to that statement in a BIG WAY!!

Seems like what they are really saying is:
"it's time Canadians appreciated OUR political party" (meaning the con party)

[HEyHEY]

5. Did you just start reading the news two months ago?

We've been there since day one...the Liberals put us there.

[GirlinContempt]

6. Wait, sorry, come again

WHEN did we enter Afghanistan?

[Hand]

8. Does this sound familiar?

OTTAWA — Fighting terrorists in Afghanistan is better than waiting until they show up in Canada, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor told the Commons on Monday.

"Canada is in Afghanistan because it is in our national interest," he said. "Our security begins very far from our borders."

"Must we wait for terrorists to appear in Vancouver, Montreal or here in Ottawa before we recognize the very real threat that they represent for our security?"

link

Fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here... Terra! Terra! 9/11! Tax cuts for the rich now! We need voting machines!

:puke:

[glarius]

9. It is amazing how openly they are aping the Bush government!

The Canadians on this forum are aware of Bush's statements and all his little foibles that Harper is aping but I don't think the Canadian public as a whole are that aware. Perhaps that is what he is counting on.

[Hand]

10. Amazing indeed--and pretty damn nauseating

Well, they call Blair the Poodle. I guess Harper's the Ape.

Which of course is an insult to apes everywhere. I think ultimately Harper's ill-concealed cynicism and contempt for the people's intelligence will help sink him. One hopes so, anyway. He's actually been worse than I expected, truly a hollow man.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. The lapdogs of war

Antonia Zerbisia, Toronto Star's Media Critic:

The lapdogs of war

Today's treeware column, about Canada's mission war in Afghanistan:

As the Nation's Christian Parenti wrote from the field: "Taliban attacks are up; their tactics have become more aggressive and nihilistic. They have detonated at least 23 suicide bombs in the past six months, killing foreign and Afghan troops, a Canadian diplomat, local police and in some cases crowds of civilians. Kidnapping is on the rise. American contractors are being targeted. Some 200 schools have been burned or closed down. And Lieut. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the senior American military officer here, expects the violence to get worse over the spring and summer."

In his March 27 report, Parenti detailed Afghanistan's failed economy, the drug trade and how the U.S. is "slashing its funding for reconstruction from a peak of $1 billion in 2004 to a mere $615 million this year. And thanks to the military's recruitment problems, the United States is drawing down its troops from 19,000 to 16,000. In short, despite (President George W.) Bush's feel-good rhetoric, the United States is giving every impression that it is slowly abandoning sideshow Afghanistan."

Which leaves guess-which-country, along with Europe, holding the bag? Are Canadians getting a true idea of how very big and dirty that bag is?

Not from most of their media.

http://thestar.blogs.com/azerb/2006/04/todays_treeware.html