The One-Sided Ceasefire

Well said. I wonder how that will play in lefty land?

Syncro

WK gets it right on this one.

And a couple of good zingers to boot:

"With the greatest of respect, Messrs. Margolis and Siddiqui give the sasquatch coverage in the National Enquirer the glossy finish of high academic research."

As for Warren's skill testing question--I would have thought the answer was "surrender." But his answer works too.

Who you support in the middle east conflict should not be a partisan affair, rather if one is to apply common sense to the situation, like Warren, it should become a no-brainer.

He looks a bit like Preston Manning in that picture.

From Another Kinsella article

"Conservatives' ideology is their ideology: tax cuts, law and order, and so on. That kind of stuff. The Liberal ideology is, to be blunt, winning. Grits like to win, and they've had a lot of practice at winning. They're good at it. Right now, they're miserable, sure, because they LOST. But there's no better motivator for a Liberal than a loss. It gets them to where they most like to be: with their foot on a Conservative or New Democrat windpipe, watching them gasp for air until Election Day. That's when Liberals are happiest. It makes them smile."

The key quote here is "The Liberal ideology is to be blunt, winning." They have demonstratably stood for little else in the last 20 years.

Kinsella was a big part of the Liberal "winning" machine with Chretien. One that by his own admmission stood for nothing else but winning at any cost.

But then Paul Martin went and used the same ideology within the party - to win at all costs - but I guess since Warren was on the other team he feels that even though Martin used the same strategy Kinsella himself promotes, Martin was a bad man.

Warren is a very smart person, but by his own admission his values start and end with the key goal of winning. And if they need to change mid campaign to accomodate a win so be it.

Perhaps his heart is in the right place in this instance, but don't be fooled overall. As soon as the Libs look like they are in a position to take power again Kinsella will be firmly behind them. Regardless of what values they might be preaching at the time. Because according to Warren, winning is all that counts.

A very large portion of todays canadians lack that once so common, common sense.

Kinsella is correct here, however, like anyone he is often not quite on...
Ooops, careful. Don*t want to encourage any documents folded into a pale blue cover.

He says a cease fire amounts to suicide for Israelis. It amounts to more than that.

In 1983 the US, [Sect Wineberger, not Reagan]and France pulled punches when 241 marines were killed by the Hez.

Russia left the endless and annoying Afstan conflict in disgust, not defeat.

Both incidents were regarded as victories by the Moslim Jihadists.

This better not be strike three. If the Hez gets by this one, the swelling of the jihad tide will be much more than just a problem for Israel.

Remember 400 million Muslims in Indonesia to start with. No more incentives allowed!

Remember August 22nd is coming. The big day when the great new leader arrives, or maybe when *Almondjeans* dons white flowing robes and declares he has arrived.

Whatever, the Hez needs to be made humble by then. =TG

Ah, Eric Margolis.

I believe he has had some connection with "Jamieson Laboratories," a "herbal medicine" company.

Perhaps Eric has been overdosing on Echinacea again...

"Neutrality". It would appear from the poll, that the Canadian sense of neutrality is well established, especially in Liberal/NDP vote rich Ontario. For a domestic example, leftwits don't have to look any further than the recent beating death of a teenager in Toronto. This is consequence of "neutrality". What neutrality really means to those "Canadians" who espouse it, is "look the other way", "don't get involved". To be fair, its hard to take a stand on principles, when you have none to stand on.

Love it or hate it but the nub of the issue here for any "ceasefire" is not the Israelis.

It's Hezbollah.

Any "ceasefire" that leaves the armed wing of Hezbollah extant will fail.

Any "peacekeeping force" that is not prepared to confront Hezbollah is also doomed to fail.

And by "confront" I don't mean the usual UN method of diplomatic tut-tutting. I mean the use of force to neutralize any Hezbollah element that attempts to attack Israel from Lebanon.

Any serious-minded force deployed to a southern Lebanese buffer zone will be pitched into war with Hezbollah upon arrival.

It's no wonder no nation is particularly enthusiastic about stepping up to the plate on this one...

Canadians are hypocrites if it's true 80% of us wish to remain neutral of this issue...

What if the shoe were on the other foot?

If the a re-emerged version of the FLQ were firing rockets into Ontario and killed eight, and kidnapped two of our Canadian soldiers.

What then of Canadian "neutrality"?

Canadians are hypocrites if it's true 80% of us wish to remain neutral of this issue...

What if the shoe were on the other foot?

If the a re-emerged version of the FLQ were firing rockets into Ontario and killed eight, and kidnapped two of our Canadian soldiers.

What then of Canadian "neutrality"?

Canadians are hypocrites if it's true 80% of us wish to remain neutral of this issue...

What if the shoe were on the other foot?

If the a re-emerged version of the FLQ were firing rockets into Ontario and killed eight, and kidnapped two of our Canadian soldiers.

What then of Canadian "neutrality"?

Margolis, Siddiqui, and Martin: can't stand any of them.

What do you call a one-sided ceasefire?

a) Suicide

b Surrender

c) Insanity

d) Liberal policy

e) All of the above

The good news here for sane Canadians is that your boy harper is going to get thrown out of office on his ass a LOT faster than either you and I would have thought. The utter insanity of the lunatic right wing in this country has been demonstrated on this site for some time now. 32%?? and your boy is the Prime Minister?? (not for long) - I predict that Canadians have quickly realized that it would be better to have crooked Liberals in power than angry, insane, off the deep end, psychotic, war mongering smalldeadanimals types. The countdown has started - your boy will be out of office this fall. (Now watch the nutbars come out of the woodwork like angry rats) - just remember, the truth hurts!

"Now watch the nutbars come out of the woodwork like angry rats"

After reading your comments, I will assume that the angry-rat nutbars are already loose.

Please do not mistake leaders like PM Harper with politicians like Paul Martin or Jean Chretien. Leaders change the course of history, politicians do not!

You know H'Bollah is hurting real bad when that insane Iranian, while stating that the only solution to the mideast crisis is the annihilaion of Israel, demands an immediate ceasefire between Isreal/H'Bullsh*tah.....

Muslims press U.N. for truce in Lebanon

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_islamic_meeting

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel. He also called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate ceasefire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to Iranian television.

More and more everyday the liberal/left is showing their true colours.

Their one-sided cries for a ceasefire, will get louder and louder, as the end gets nearer and nearer for their allies in Hezbollah..!

Just watch and listen,...you'll see.

It's an excellent post by Kinsella. My own view is that the conflict is, at the moment, a 'proxy' conflict. It isn't the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Not a word, frankly, has been said by either side about this. It's a deeper and more sinister situation - between Iran and the West. Israel and Hezbollah are the proxies for those two agents.

As I keep saying, THE major problem in the ME, is its refusal to modernize and move into a modern political system (democracy). Their refusal means that the majority in every ME state, lacks economic, social and political power. The tribal despots, a minority tribe in every case, of the ME are holding onto power by military strength and above all by the use of fanatical religious ideology, AND by the tactic of externalizing the unrest.

This 'tension' has led to Islamic fascism, which inserts 'hope' into the disenfranchised population by inserting a notion of 'In the Future, When Everything is Purely Islam, Life Will Be Good'. It is not good now, because the Evil West is preventing 'goodness'.

Of course, it isn't the Evil West that is maintaining the ME peoples without economic and political power. It's their tribal leadership.

Hezbollah is not, any more, about Palestine. The ME arab states don't give a damn about the Palestinians - and this situation would exist EVEN IF there were a Palestinian state. It's just very handy for Iran that it can hide behind the Israel-Palestine situation, while it attempts to take over Lebanon and have Syria rule Lebanon for it.

The basic problem is - the tribalism of the ME, which is strangling the people there, restricting, restraining and preventing them from participating in the world economy and world knowledge. That's the first problem. The second is that Iran wants to rule this tribal conclave - as a tribal enclave.

Will the resolution of Islamic fascism require a world war? I don't know. It has to be resolved. You cannot have millions of people kept isolate from the rest of the world, kept in a medievel and feudal social system.

A ceasefire is irrelevant, since as noted, Hezbollah isn't interested in a ceasefire,and since the conflict is NOT about Israel and Palestine but about Iran's agenda of taking over the ME.

What is to be hoped, is that the other ME states, none of whom want to be under the rule of Iran, will step up and say and do something. That would be the best solution. But then, at the same time, they will all also have to renounce tribalism and move into democracy.

Regarding "Neutrality", 65% of Americans polled also would like to see the States be neutral. What this really translates into is let the mideast slug it out and don't get involved.

Peter MacKay in rebutal to questions put to him by Queen of the far left
Quote: "It's not a difficult choice siding with a democratic state with an elected gov't. or a group of cold blooded killers"..
After some more out in left field questioning... He went on to also say: Quote "There is a marked difference between a democratic country defending the lives of it's citizen's & a terrorist army intent on death & destruction"

Therefore you come to the conclusion that the gov't is defending democracy & freedom, while the Left is saying it's ok for a terrorist group to attack democracy & destroy it..

I Vote for Democracy, Thanks Peter..

One more point why would the left & MSM defend a group of terrorist that also attack from within hospitals & residential neighborhoods & who will have departed to another location only leaving the innocents of war to receive the retaliation.

The left is becoming very dangerous to the Right's & Freedom's that our forfather's put in place for us.

I like Warren more the less Liberal he becomes...

That post was golden. It's common sense for the right but it sure is sweet (cause it's so rare) when it comes from the left.

It's quite simiple really:

Warren Kinsella needs to declare himself a conservative. If it walks, talks, and quacks like a conservative...how can it be a liberal?

Don't kid yourself WK is slightly Left but when it comes to Racism and terrorism, he writes tough, you can tell he despises it.

In my opinion, WK was the one most responsible for blowing the cover to PMPMs folly. Including Kyoto. On his web site he pulled no punches, told (exposed)the truth. Yes, there may have been bad blood between Chretien & Martin camps but, in my opinion, the hoaxy nature of Martin's campaign was just to much for even a long time Liberal to stomach !!

WK gets it right on. Refreshing.

I just moved across the country. AB to NL and after a week, settled in. First chance I got to catch the news in a while was last night. I was literally frothing at the mouth. So blatently one sided was the reporting on the conflict I don't understand how they get away with it. Showing Lebonese women and children running from the Israeli bombs, bombs dropping close to Lebonese schools. The ultimate creaming the pants leftist moonbat hand wringing piece showing the environmental impact of an Israeli attack on a oil storage facility resulting on oil flowing in a region of the Med. I mean it had to be 10 god damn minutes long, showing some Christiane Amanpour wanna be strolling the oil soaked beach donned in her blouse and khakis weeping and nashing her teeth over the disaster. I went outside, had a smoke, vomited and went to bed. Next time I think of turning on the National, please behead me.

Good for Warren.

Regarding the 80% of Canadians poll - I'd like to know how the question was worded. Of course the Muslim Haroon is all over this in his op/ed crap in the star today.

Rational Canadians (whatever is left of us) have to get better at the propoganda war being waged in Canada first and then the world second.

WK, I think, has one of the greatest quotes I've heard in a long time. With regards to the 80% of Canadians who want neutrality...
" neutrality is what happens when someone hurries past when you are being mugged."

The take no sides, make no opinions approach of the Lieberal dynasty has done nothing but diminish any reputation Canada once had for standing up for what is right and just. There was a time when Canada knew what was right and stepped up to the plate to tell Uncle Adolf to bugger off or North Korea to get out of South Korea. The take no guff reputation of Canada was what helped the Turks and Greeks in Cyprus realize that those Canadian Blue helmets weren't kidding and had to be respected. Until very lately, the Canadian "neutrality" position is seen by all sides as weakness and indecision, worthy of being ignored.

I didn't see the poll, but I wonder how "neutrality" is defined. Technically, Canada is still neutral in the fight because other than lip service, we haven't done squat for Israel. As ET said, this is a proxy war between the West and Iran/Syria, and we're willing to stand back and let the Israelis get bloodied. If we were to really pick a side, let's help them out in the fight. If we're no longer concerned about our international reputation for "neutrality", and it's a worthwhile fight to engage in, what is the downside to that?

Jaymeister: Other than loaning the Israelis some nifty forest green combat clothes, just what can we do? The Foreign Affairs Committee can't even decide the difference between a ceasefire and a sustainable ceasefire. Besides, maple syrup doesn't keep well in the ME.

' "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate ceasefire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to Iranian television. '

I think that's Islamic logic for "please stop killing us so we can kill you back". These guys have got to stop drinking camel piss.

I'm so staunchly anti-Liberal that it makes my eyes cross, yet I have a strange appreciation of, and fondness for, Warren Kinsella. He reminds me, in his loyalty to Jean Chretien, of Wayne Gretzky, whose loyalty to Bruce McNall suggested associations which didn't really exist; his sturdiness as a friend turned out to be simple loyalty, a personal quality he demonstrated again to Marty McSorley, and Rick Toccet and others. If loyalty is a crime, it's one of the more forgiveable ones.

Anyway, to see WK's Irish fists up and taking on the commentariat for their ominously curious double standard when it comes to Israel is just plain good to see, and one more reason to appreciate the guy -- what an excellent column. Thanks for the link Kate.

texas canuck:

What exactly is Canada doing for Israel? It's all fine to go around talking to people in synagogues and saying nice things while more rockets fly into Israel and more Israeli soldiers are killed defending the West from terrorism. We're so committed to Israel that we're going to sit back and cheer them on while they fight on their own. That's really courageous.

Jaymeister: What I said was "just what can we do?" The sad fact is that Canada is a toothless paper tiger that doesn't have the roar anymore to get people to pay attention. The world and mankind have little use for fence sitters.

Make note that this is indeed a war here. Calling for a ceasefire is akin the allies calling a ceasefire as Hitler's troops were being pushed back and on the run.

Texas Canuck:

What is it that I wrote that you misunderstood? I did not call for a ceasefire. I support Israel's right to defend itself. I just asked a simple question about what Canada (or other allies for that matter) has done for Israel besides cheerlead? Right now it's as if we're Marlin Perkins up in the helicopter while Jim Fowler (Israel) is down on the ground wrestling the bengal tiger.

Canada is a toothless paper tiger that doesn't have the roar anymore to get people to pay attention.

If this is true, then the whole debate is a moot point. Everyone is too busy patting the government on the back for their verbal support to realize that they haven't actually done anything to help Israel out. What are you willing to sacrifice?

Canada is a toothless paper tiger that doesn't have the roar anymore to get people to pay attention.

Sorry for the followup, but I forgot to mention another thing: When did Canada ever have that roar of which you speak? When exactly were the good old days? The problem in our public discourse is that the Left longs for a future that can never be, and the Right longs for a past that never really existed.

Jaymeister said: "When did Canada ever have that roar of which you speak? When exactly were the good old days?"

Ummmm..... that would be at the end of WWII when we had the 4th largest navy, and the 5th largest army in the world. When it was generally acknowledged around the world that Canada (at that time a nation of 11 million) punched abover it's weight in world affairs. It would also be during the one and only truly useful period of the UN, when the nation of Israel was created in part as a way of dealing with the shameful abandonment of the world's Jews, many of whom went straight from concentration camps in Germany and Poland into refugee camps in cyprus. Canada's Lester B. Pearson was one of the most respected pro-Israeli voices in the UN during that debate. Our influence extended through the 50's with our involvement with NATO, Korea, and various UN actions.

No, we never were a superpower. But we were a highly respected middle power who had proved their mettle in the crucible of two world wars, and whose voice was heard as something other than the pedantic scoldings of a second rate international nanny reduced to being a professional hand wringer because the kids just don't care what she says anymore.

Yeah, the good old days did exist. And perhaps they can again.

Actually, thinking about it, I wonder if we didn't actually have the 4th largest army at that time. This of course is taking into account the surrenders of Germany and Japan.

"Mr. Schwartz, a confidante of former prime minister Paul Martin and one of Canada's most influential businessmen as the head of Onex Corp., is one of the eight signatories of an advertisement placed in a newspaper in Cornwall, Ont., where the Conservatives are holding caucus meetings."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060804.LIBERALS04/TPStory/

Just wondering if someone knows who the other seven were?

Great news Mark. Thanks.

Why do you, Warren and Prime Minsiter Steve hate Canadians?

I ask because Canadians have been killed by a foreign country but your response makes it as though supporting that foreign country is more important than supporting your fellow citizens.

Jaymeister said: "When did Canada ever have that roar of which you speak? When exactly were the good old days?"

Or in WWI when the Allies had to hide the Canadian troop movements because the German's considered us the 'elite shock troops' of the Allies. Wherever the Canadian corps was at, the Germans knew they were in for a bad time, and was feared by the Germans much more than the Brits, French or Yanks.

Do some reading of the last 18 months of WWI and be AMAZED at the bravery and ability of the Canadians to do what none of the other allies could.