The federal New Democrats want Canada to take a lead role in any UN mission to stop the bloodshed in Sudan’s Darfur province, even if that means scaling back its commitment in Afghanistan.
NDP Leader Jack Layton pointed to a weekend poll that suggested public support for Canada’s Afghan mission is wavering.
A majority of those polled opposed Canada’s effort there, compared with a similar poll in March that found only about 40 per cent against the mission.
Layton said a major Canadian commitment to a UN mission in Darfur, where at least 180,000 people have died and millions are refugees because of a bitter civil war, would likely get much broader public backing. “Our view is that this is exactly the kind of peacekeeping role that Canadians have always supported,” Layton said Sunday. “Canada invented the concept of UN-led peacekeeping forces under (then diplomat Lester) Pearson” in the 1950s.
[…]
“We’ve heard varying reports out of our military regarding our capacities here,” he said. “So that is, of course, one of the key questions to be asked.
“But I think that Canadians would want us to be in Darfur. That sentiment is found right across the country.”
In related news…
Sudan: What Afghanistan might have been, had they not pissed off the Russians…
Mi-24 helicopter gunships; Amnesty International said that Russia and China have broken a UN arms embargo by supplying Sudan with weapons
Chinese strike aircraft and Russian helicopter gunships have been photographed at three airports in Darfur. Their presence violates UN Resolution 1591, which banned Sudan from transferring any weaponry to Darfur without the Security Council’s official permission.
Both Russia and China approved the passage of the resolution in March 2005. But Amnesty’s new report finds that both countries went on to breach the very arms embargo they were party to imposing.
China sold arms and ammunition worth £12 million to Sudan in 2005, along with spare parts worth £30 million for military aircraft.
In the same year, Russia sold helicopter gunships worth almost £7 million to the Khartoum regime. Belarus, a close ally of Russia, exported 32 heavy artillery guns and nine armoured fighting vehicles. China also sold six K8 training aircraft to Sudan’s air force. Another six of these jet planes, which could be used for ground attack missions, are due to be delivered soon.
[…]
In addition, Sudan’s air force routinely employs Antonov 26 transport aircraft – all made in Russia – as heavy bombers. At least one of these planes has been sprayed with white paint and given fake “UN” markings in order to disguise it as a UN aircraft.
Of course, the CTV report isn’t all that clear. It may well be that the NDP’s version of “peacekeeping” in Darfur would see Canada allied with the Sudanese government.
with Borat Dion so consumed with recycling and sorting his trash into French and English bins there hasnt been much to report. so into the vacuum they let go an airhead.
looks like Taliban Jack had to spew on all issues today.
For the umpteeth time Taliban Jack, you do not speak for me so why don’t you just shut up for a change. Stop pretending to know what Canadians want because in reality you have no clue whatsoever.
we’re slipping into another Cold War I fear. Actually I’m more afraid that Governments are snoozing at the wheel and not seeing this for what it is. Remember Russia and China are on the permanent security council of the UN. Chilling.
It’s all about the military-industrial complex, right lefties? Right?
Oh, never mind. BushMcChimpyHitlerburton can’t be blamed so they’re off protesting the oil companies…
I am getting so *expletive* ticked off with this crap we keep hearing from the left (especially the NDP) about Canada’s “traditional role” as a “peace-keeping” nation.
We were asked to take a leadership role in peace-keeping exactly once – the Suez Crisis. We have never been asked since. All other peace-keeping commitments we have made since then have been for show and kept to a minimum to help mask the fact that constant neglect and downsizing since WWII has brought our military down to an almost completely ineffective level.
Our “traditional” role had always been that of a beating-plough-shares-into-swords-war-fighting-nation…with the theme being that we are willing to sacrifice lives for the sake of doing what is right. I much prefer that to the modern en vogue idea of characterizing us as a nation that safely avoids picking sides by calling any action “peace-keeping.”
Yup. we were apparently just peacekeeping when we landed on the beaches of normandy (or norway if you’re a liberal.) We were just peacekeeping when we took vimmy ridge (or vichy if you’re a liberal.)
Now taliban jack wants us to stop trying to get rid of radical, hateful and murderous islamofascists in Afghanastan (as we’re fighting there! So unpeaceable and unCanadian!) so we can try to get rid of radical, hateful and murderous islamofascists in Sudan. And people voted for this retarded fool why?
Bryceman-You took the words right out of my mouth.
Peacekeeping is one of the dumbest ideas ever invented.
No doubt that’s why it took a Canadian to invent it.
“Peacekeeping” is a political cop-out for doing the heavy lifting and fighting required to first secure the peace.
Jack acts as if Canadian troops landing on the ground will precipitate peace. Sorry, Jack, that ain’t the way it works in Africa or anywhere. Witness how many UN troops are in Darfur as we speak. Witness how many observed the Israel-Hezbollah conflict of last summer. Witness Canadian-led UN presence in Rwanda.
All UN peacekeepers do is witness, for that is their mandate. Listen and report, nothing else. They do not act, either in the preservation or establishment of peace.
Would that Canada never don the blue helmet again.
Politics….they want out of AFghanistan because, well there are americans there from Bush.
Jack wants our military to hand out rations and water…noble causes to be sure but a waste of the training. Thats the job for a peace corps….
What exactly are the peacekeepers going to do in Darfur….are they going to fight the arab militias or just post sentry duty around refugee camps?
To be of any darn use in Darfur, we would have to kick Janjaweed butt the same way we’re kicking Taliban butt – and kick Sudanese Army butt on top of that. Is Layton such a darn cretin that he cannot understand this obvious fact? Not to mention that we don’t even begin to have the logistics to get us in there without the Sudanese government’s complete acquiescence and cooperation.
Going into Darfur is going to make the casualties we’ve taking in A’stan so far look like an afternoon in Jane-Finch.
Idiotic left doesn’t have a clue about reality. In a better age, cluelessness would have led to purging from the gene pool.
once again, a leftard is spewing off about “military aid” out of the right side of his mouth, yet will fight vehemently against new equipment, money, etc for the military out of the left side….how exactly would any leftard moron propose helping in Sudan????what equipment would we use????it was the same crap when I wore the uniform…….cut, cut, cut…..help, help, help….can’t have it both ways, leftard morons!
Bryceman – me too.
The mis-information spread by the Left about Canada’s military and political history is appalling, aided by an education system that doesn’t teach about Canada’s glorious military history (except to say that bombing Dresden was murder and Billy Bishop was a cheat).
Can Taliban Jack Layton-NDP spell/say: Mohammedans? Would he dare?
The MSM is engaged an on-going cover-up of the Muslim genocide in Darfur.
MSM news stories/aricles monitored and repeatedly posted here give no mention that the genocide is by brown Arab Muslims killing black African Muslims.; even the words, Muslim/Islam are omitted.
These reports may give the words, “jihad”, or, “Janjaweed”, “Arab militias”, etc. These words are unintelligible/meaningless to most.
To help understand the region and its peoples, Sir Winston Churchill’s book, The River War, written in 1899, is an excellent first-hand account of the Mahdi’s death. Churchill uses the word, Mohammedans, throughout his book. Political correctness has erased/expunged the use of the word, Mohammedans. Pity.
The Suez Crises is such a whooper of a myth to begin with. While I’m prepared to give Pearson some diplomatic credit, look at who was involved in the crises .. Civilized countries.
The French, the Brits and Israel were on one side with the Americans and the Soviets holding a gun to their heads over Egypt’s Suez in the middle. The whole idea is nonsense that Pearson did this “peacekeeping” without the powerful military and economic supremacy of the US and Soviets. The whole notion that this was done without “guns” is a myth; they weren’t fired but the fact that they were there is what counts.
Moreover, settling a dispute with these civilized parties can’t be compared to negotiating with Islamofascists and death cults which is what Layton thinks Pearsonians could do.
It’s like the myth of Gandhi lying down on the railroad tracks to stop the British. Would Gandhi lie down with bin Laden driving the train?
Layton has one and only one agenda. Votes. That’s what he’s after, not justice for Afghanistan or the Sudan. Not moral responsibility for Canada. Just votes.
The SES poll that Layton is referring to was completely invalid. Kate had its questions linked to this site just a day or two ago. The questions were unacceptable; they were ‘either-or’ False Dilemma questions. And the sample population was biased to 3/4 Left, made up primarily of confirmed Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Green. So the poll is utter garbage.
I agree with other posters – it always makes me furious when politicians – and Layton and Dion are the two main culprits – who inform us that their agendas are ‘what Canadians want’. No they aren’t and I object to their arrogant hubris that they speak for me. Or indeed, for most Canadians.
Elizabeth May has moved into a self-appointed role as Gaia Goddess; her assertions of a direct connection to Heavenly Truth are another version.
But Layton, Dion and May, who are after votes, not justice, are making an error. People don’t want sycophantic politicians, filled with greed, who want only one thing for and from the people – votes. People want leadership.
Leadership takes a position, based on principles that are neither servile to the hysteric opinion of the moment nor inflexibly bonded to out of date rules. But it takes a principled position, it makes decisions based on these principles; the decisions may not please the majority in the short term but will in the long term. Leadership is about what is right for a people, a nation, and not what about what puts a political party in power.
Layton, Dion and May – none of them are leaders; they are political stooges.
Ok … let Russia along with China have at it in Sudan then! They cam supply arms and peacekeepers!
I wonder what the outcome of that will look like??
Yup!
Jack, how will your policy change after Canadian soldiers start getting killed? Will you run away and find another place to send them?
Peacekeeping has ‘failed’ in this era, says Dallaire
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/28/dallaire-peacekeepers.html
“The concept of peacekeeping has failed in this era. The Canadian army hasn’t been in peacekeeping for the last 15 years,” said Dallaire, who spoke at the University of Saskatchewan Wednesday, said the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.
Warfare is no longer country against country, he said during the lecture, which was sponsored by the university’s law faculty.
Wars now deal with tribalism, ethnicity and economics, said Dallaire.”
I would concur with Senator Romeo Dallaire in his assessment of current conflicts. This is currently the case with Darfur.
see the following reports:
http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/12_03_07_un_sudan.pdf
“The High-Level Mission concludes that the situation of human rights in Darfur
remains grave, and the corresponding needs profound. The situation is
characterized by gross and systematic violations of human rights and grave
breaches of international humanitarian law. War crimes and crimes against
humanity continue across the region. The principal pattern is one of a violent
counterinsurgency campaign waged by the Government of the Sudan in concert
with Janjaweed /militia, and targeting mostly civilians. Rebel forces are also guilty
of serious abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law. All parties to
the conflict must recognize that applicable human rights and humanitarian law standards must be respected during internal armed conflict and that the “fog of war” is not an acceptable justification for violating these standards. While
important steps have been taken by the international community, including the
African Union and the United Nations, these have been largely resisted and
obstructed, and have proven inadequate and ineffective. The needs identified by
the Mission include immediate, effective protection of civilians, renewed progress
toward peace, expanded humanitarian space, increased accountability for
perpetrators, action to address root causes, meaningful compensation and redress
for victims, and concerted efforts to implement the many existing recommendations
of authoritative international human rights bodies. The Mission further concludes
that the Government of the Sudan has manifestly failed to protect the population of
Darfur from large-scale international crimes, and has itself orchestrated and
participated in these crimes. As such, the solemn obligation of the international
community to exercise its responsibility to protect has become evident and urgent.”
IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 60/251
OF 15 MARCH 2006 ENTITLED “HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL”
Report of the High-Level Mission on the situation of human rights in Darfur pursuant to
Human Rights Council decision S-4/101
Will the Mi-24 helicopters be carrying humanitarian aid to relieve the suffering or unload a more deadly cargo?
Only your UN Security Council members really know.
cf “Shake Hands with the Devil”
I’ve always found it more useful to give the Devil a kick in the backside, rather than shake hands.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Tom, exactly the point I was going to make! How quickly will Jacko be screaming to abandon the mission once Canadians start getting suicide-bombed in Darfur? Does he think it will be an easy mission? Boy is he in for a rude awakening.
Didn’t Layton read that a peacekeeper was killed recently. How do you keep the peace when there is a war going on. How do you build road, schools, hospitals or other infrastructure when the enemy is coming behind you and blowing them up. What a waste of time, money and effort. I also thing the sudan govt has not asked for outside help. Does Layton think cdns will tolerate deaths in the Sudan more so than deaths in Afgan. And, if Layton knew what cdns want, why isn’t he PM.
leftards envision running through the fields, flowers in their hair, strumming guitars, and singing songs of love….he would pee his pants if he ever came face to face with a stone cold murdering islamist terrorist….leftard morons!
Okay, Jack Layton, we prefer you and your merry group to go to Darfur. Maybe they can “talk” to them to be nice to their own people. We have enough for our soldiers to do in Afganistan. We sure elected a bunch of “winners” last election and probably will continue to do so. No brains!!
So let’s get this straight. Layton proposes that we should abandon Afghanistan to the Islamofascists because well, when we landed up they like, shot at our troops and gosh, darn if some of their rounds didn’t find their mark. And besides, we need to set a time limit to announce to the Islamofascists exactly when we intend to abandon the battle, and in the mean time “negotiate” with them about how many teachers they can behead, schools they can burn down, and how many young girls they can prevent from ever getting an education.
Instead we should go to Darfur where, as long as we land up wearing blue helmets with “UN” painted on them, bloodthirsty Islamofascist savages who have massacred entire villages, men, women and children — the lot, will see aforementioned blue helmets and suddenly fall on their knees, arms in the air, dazzled by the blazing glory of the UN logo, foresake their evil ways and rue the day they ever ignored a UN resolution. They will never fire a shot at us, and we will announced our intended departure in exactly two years, which they will take as a deadline for mending their ways and returning to the peaceful bucolic existence they knew before the madness of UN-denial gripped them. No one will be wounded or killed and the troops will be home by Christmas. — My butt!
You’ve got Jack all wrong. Layton wishes to SUPPORT the genocide.
Kate nailed it with this observation,
“It may well be that the NDP’s version of “peacekeeping” in Darfur would see Canada allied with the Sudanese government.”
Common’ now those gunships and bombers, they is delivering humanitarian aid under very tough conditions.
After all, the people there just wanted to be left alone, and had to brought painfully to the position where being shot and bombed is the humanitarian position, relieving them of the pain and suffering of being, and worrying over thier (now dead) crops and children.
Sheesh. No good deed goes unpunished.
*************************
Less cynically, would hypothetical Canadian peacekeepers get to bring a flight of F-18’s , heavy artillery, and ADATs anti aircraft units now that it has been conclusively shown that the other side uses airpower.
There’s a question for Jack.
“Canada is a stern daughter of the voice of god who happily assumes moral superiority to Americans while never being responsible for results. Such a posture has a great attraction to Canadian leaders because they can “acquire reputations and honours” while blame and failure goes to those possessed of power and means.”
– Dean Acheson US Secretary of State (1965) said to Canadian prime minister Lester Pearson. He was born in Canada.
I don’t like to admit how long it took me before i realized how sad it is to brag about peacekeeping – i guess the result of growing up in this country.
Sure, it’s a nice gig, but every country would rather do that than send soldiers to be killed.
Why do we think it’s so special? Why brag about it? It’s basically a matter of keeping the peace after other folks – often American – have died to establish it.
This is Jack’s way of getting us out of Afghan. He knows there is zero will in world to intervene in Sudan. As others have stated, we could face staggering casualties if we invaded (call it what it is) the Sudan.
No, Jack, if you really want us out of Afghanistan, argue for reinforcements for both sides of Pakistan border to starve out Taliban and foreign fighters, forever denying them a foreign base of operations.
Apparently that would be escalation, but unilaterally invading (peacekeeping, he can’t be that ignorant) Sudan AOK.
Here’s a thought; stop supplying Sudanese with armaments. I wonder how Dubya and Halliburton are getting those Russian and Chinese weapons to Sudan?
The Suez peacekeeping mission, UNEF, was such a great success that it ended with Egyptian President Nasser kicking the force out in 1967 (it was stationed solely on the Egyptian side of the border and at the sufferance of Egypt)–which led shortly thereafter to the Six-Day War.
Perhaps Jumpin’ (from Afstan to Darfur) Jack should bother to learn just a little history.
Not to mention the great success of UN peacekeeping in Bosnia and Croatia, of which Canada was part, that ultimately led to the Srbrenica massacre in 1995. The civil wars were eventually ended by NATO bombing of the Serbs and a Croatian military takeback of the Krajina (with yet more ethnic cleansing). A peace was enforced by a 60,000 strong NATO Stabilization Force (of which Canada was part).
The Canadian Forces were in the former Yugoslavia in significant numbers from 1992 until 2004. What was the “exit strategy”? And we used tanks when part of the NATO force in Kosovo; and our CF-18s bombed the Serbs in Kosovo and Serbia proper in 1999.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=992
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/kosovo.html
Mark
Ottawa
Me No Dhimmi:
No big deal, but Acheson was not born in Canada. He was born in Connecticut. His father had worked as a priest in Canada…but that was before Dean was born.
That pretty much puts dots above ‘i’ for all claims by Russia that they are trustworthy, civilized state that must be accepted to the world community. Don’t know for you, but I never thought that Putin’s or any other Russian leader’s word can be taken seriously. Russia is the same rouge state that it was back in Khruschev and Brezhnev era when it supported Kastro, Lumumba, Ho Chi Minh etc.
David Solway:
frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28220
Canada is not only an incoherent country but a country gone soft, more than half its citizenry believing that world peace is achievable through parliamentary posturing, expressions of highfalutin sentiment, unquestioning support for the corrupt and ineffectual U.N., the admission in principle of the equality of all cultural perspectives (with two exceptions: our own and Judaism’s), the enunciation of good intentions and impetuous calls for immediate ceasefire. It is a country that has enfeebled its military to the point at which, as historian Jack Granatstein has indicated in Whose War Is It?, it would be unable to respond effectively to a national catastrophe. It is a country which believes that soldiers are meant to keep the peace even if there is no peace to keep, but that they are certainly not meant to risk their lives on the battlefield. The job of the army is to build schools, hospitals and bridges, but not to prevent the enemy from blowing them up the moment they are in place. Canadians tend to be deeply concerned that the terrorist detainees in Afghanistan—those who plant roadside bombs, kill wantonly, mutilate and behead—may not be receiving proper treatment from the Afghan authorities to whom they have been turned over. That these are members of the same Taliban organization which sheltered al-Qaeda and enthusiastically endorsed and abetted its project to murder and maim as many innocent civilians as possible, including those who piously wish to defend the terrorists’ rights and wellbeing, seems of little or no importance.
Bryceman,
You are correct but his mother was Canddian and he had significant contacts and interest in Canada. Acheson would be familiar with Canadian finger wagging and sideline harrumphing.
One of our more endearing qualities
Mississauga Matt:
Interestingly I’ve had Solway’s book on my buy list since reading a review of it a while back. Thanks for the reminder and the article link. I’ll get this book. All praise to his courage, for which I’m sure he’s lost a lot of friends.
Apparently Solway is a 9/11 convert, like, say Christopher Hitchens, Tammy Bruce et al. And on a lighter note the comic Dennis Miller.
I love reading everyone’s comments and I’m often impressed by the depth of discussion. But we’re singing to the choir here folks, if we don’t put a little action to our words.
The Cdn. gov’t needs to know they have support out in the real world and the NDP need to know they have staunch opposition.
I’ve sent the following to EVERY MP on the hill and I can only urge that other SDA readers put in their two cents worth, too.
——————————————————————————–
Dear Mr. Layton
I note you are again purporting to speak on my behalf when you claim that Canadians wish that we abandon Afghanistan and take up ‘peace keeping’ duties in Darfur. I’m providing a link to an article in the UK Telegraph (online edition) stating that both Russia and China are supplying weapons to the ‘government’ of Darfur for attacks on their own citizens. This is of course in contravention to UN Resolution 1591, signed by both the Chinese and the Russians.When can we expect to see you rise in the House of Commons on behalf of the NDP, to publically condemn Russia and China for breaking Resolution 1591?
Perhaps your efforts should be turned to these rogue nations in order to prevent further bloodshed. Would not cutting off the flow of arms be more effective than inserting our troops between combatants? And if in your estimation, we are unable to defeat the mysoginist and hateful Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, why would you assume we would do better in Darfur?
As for me, I fully support our soldiers in Afghanistan. Despite the claims of your party and supporters like Dr. Michael Byers, progress is being made. In 2003, almost the entirety of Afghanistan was under Taliban control. Today, 75% of the country is ‘Taliban free’ and several million Afghanis (of at least whom half are women) have some hope. Please stop using the Afghan people as political pawns – let our military do the job for which they volunteered and who knows, someday soon the Afghani people may enjoy a modicum of hope, peace and relative prosperity.
If we abandon them now, their future will most certainly be just another variation of hell.
——————————————————————————–
Russia and China ‘break Darfur arms embargo’ http://tinyurl.com/3856×6
By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent
Last Updated: 4:28am BST 09/05/2007
Russia and China have broken a United Nations arms embargo by supplying Sudan with attack helicopters, bombers and other weapons in the knowledge that they are being use against civilians in Darfur, Amnesty International said yesterday……
From the newsarticle:
>>> “Layton said a major Canadian commitment to a UN mission in Darfur, where at least 180,000 people have died and millions are refugees because of a bitter civil war, would likely get much broader public backing.”
>>> From Layton’s March speech: “Afghanistan is suffering a civil war – the war needs a resolution, not more warriors. Fighting counter-insurgency warfare […] isn’t going to solve Afghanistan’s security problems.”
From one civil war to another.
What Darfur Sudan has been without military intervention, Afghanistan might become if NATO abandons the people of that country.
And, as in Darfur, one side wins in a civil war and Canada has to choose sides if we want to go there with fighting capabilities. We will have to be for or against the Janjuweed, for or against the government-backed militias.
>>> Again from Jack Layton’s speech: “[W]e’re calling today for Canada to take leadership in Afghanistan, to work for practical solutions. The safe and determined withdrawal of our troops […] is now required. […] [Canadians] are looking for visionary leadership. This requires clear and consistent decision- making – not poll by poll waffling.”
>>> From today’s newsarticle: “NDP Leader Jack Layton pointed to a weekend poll that suggested public support for Canada’s Afghan mission is wavering.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
Yet, Jack Layton does.
I would love to see Layton get some more air time ..
This time over Darfur starting at 20,000 feet and closing quickly.
Sorry, but after all the hand-wringing over one Canadian UN peacekeeper dieing during the Iraeli-Lebanon Conflict. He would put hopelessly under-armed Canadian UN “Peacekeepers” down there? It would be a slaughter
Only a parasite.. sorry… dipper, moocher or taker… would ever consider getting involved in a civil war which is being fought over religion – Christians vs Muslims. At least in Afghanistan, Taliban Jack, it is about power and not religion. God, how I wish he would go back to municipal politics. This level of politics is above his ability.
And in the same piece there is this from Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh >
Why does no one in the media ask the “we should be in Darfur” types what we’d do with the prisoners Canadian soldiers would inevitably capture? Based on their reactions to rumours of possible torture of Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan, how could the Opposition parties possibly suggest intervening in Darfur without a laying out to the public a comprehensive plan on dealing with captured enemy combatants in Darfur.
Darfur?
I think anyone with half a mind would realize that getting involved in this conflict would lead to a Sh*t storm of unreal proportions. Sure, wars are never fought with absolute idealyc results, but my god… Darfur vs. Afghanistan. I’d rank Afghanistan lower than Darfur on the Sh*t-o-meter. However, maybe the NDP would approach the Darfur situation with a winning strategy, perhaps by taking away our military’s “Big guns” and replacing them with “small guns”. –God save Canada from the lefties.
As for Taliban Jack’s ideas on “peace keeping” in Afghanistan, I ask: How do you keep peace in a place where the enemy is willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent women and children?
Afghanistan is not the time or place for blue helmets.
What will Jack do if we do go to Darfur and our soldiers start to get killed? Will good Ol’ Jack asks us to redeploy somewhere else?
The fact is the left hates confrontation–they think that being nice and talking will get things done; they live in a parallel universe that exists solely in their hyperactive imagination.
Our soldiers are doing fine work in Afghanistan–let’s support them period…our leaders should govern by leadership, not polls.
My apologies, I forgot to include the quotation in my post above. Here is the post again in full:
And in the same piece there is this from Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh “I don’t believe Darfur would be a traditional peacekeeping role if we are to disarm the Janjuweed,” he said, referring to government-backed militias held responsible for much of the killing. “That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take it on. We should.”
Why does no one in the media ask the “we should be in Darfur” types what we’d do with the prisoners Canadian soldiers would inevitably capture? Based on their reactions to rumours of possible torture of Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan, how could the Opposition parties possibly suggest intervening in Darfur without a laying out to the public a comprehensive plan on dealing with captured enemy combatants in Darfur.
Sudan has rejected any non-African Union troops. So, how does the “Jack Plan” work? Are we to understand that Jack wants us to “force” our way in, that would be Canadian soldiers … with guns … in Sudan … I’m not making this up.
“Progressives” disgust me more every day. They live in a world of utopian fantasy, and when their fantasy doesn’t come true, they make up reality.
There is no UN mandate for non-Afrincan Union troops to enter Darfur and any such move would be countered by Sudan. So what “Progressive” Jack is proposing is that we “INVADE”, and then do what? … when somebody shoots back. Just like in Iraq … just like in Afghanistan … but then, those were “Bush Wars”.
“Progressives” … what are they good for?
http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnBAN923813.html
“The U.N. Security Council last year adopted a resolution to deploy a “hybrid” U.N.-African Union force of more than 20,000 in Darfur, western Sudan. So far Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has agreed only to deployment of 3,000 U.N. police and military to aid the African Union force of 7,000 troops.”
What a great discussion with David Solway and Jamie Glazov. This is the stuff that should be required reading for every student if you could get it by the leftist teachers.
“When a member of the Political Faith leaves the ranks, he always loses many, if not all, of his “friends.” In my own life experience of being surrounded by leftists, I have observed that their friendships are not really based on what they actually like about each other, but are simply based on how much their views on the world conform to one another’s. The moment you abandon the main ingredients of the faith, you become a non-person.”
His vision on seeing through the liberal claptrap and pointing out the real danger we are in due to this type of thinking is dead on. His comments on why the leftists are aligning themselves with the muslim religion is enlightening as well as frightening. Reading his review explains why idiots like Layton spout the garbage they do, the brain-dead fools. Having been there as a liberal intellectual from the 60’s onward gives him a great insight.
Why the leftist trolls who post to this site can’t see this danger and it is only the US that is providing the strength to support our way of life is beyond my understanding.
Me No Dhimmi,
Solway was on Michael Coren Live a few weeks ago and I was duly impressed – never seen the man before but he obviously gets it. Coren appears threatened when someone superior to him is on, so I don’t expect to see Solway on there again, but I’ve seen the book and it’s on my to-buy list also.
It seems to me that many “activists”, leftists, socialist types are united by hate. It has been this way throughout history.
They get their power from spewing hate and fear of the target of their hate.
Listen to the NDP and parroted by the BLOC and the Liberals these days. I’ll just use one example of their HATE mongering.
BIG OIL.
Convenient target for uniting hate mongers. Environmentalists, greenies, marxists, and getting big points for politicians.
Sad, so very very sad that this demonizing still works on the very weak minded and gullible masses who don’t think for themselves and look at the motives behind these groups.
The same groups who scream for taxpayers to give money to lawyers to “protect” so called minorities from hate.
Does it not make your head spin from the hypocrciy in this country?
Pundit, Africa is similar to the middle east in that their loyalty is first to their tribe as a lot of their countries overlap these tribal areas. These countries were also set up by Europians in unnatural boundaries. A great many of their leaders are kleptocratic thugs, like Mugabe, and have destroyed the economies of their once rich countries. Left to their own devices they, like the factions in the ME, are constantly warring with each other and in turmoil so they never progress, just sink lower.
some signs of hope….Ethiopia is one…..they are doing a magnificent job fighting the islamists and feeding their people….they deserve our help….my daughter-in-law did 6 months there, and it is progressing quite well…we should be targeting our aid where it does the most……Ethiopia deserves our help
I’m not being needlessly provocative here, just cranky, but last I looked, we had declared war on neither Afghanistan nor Sudan. The very discussion of our presence in these countries indicates that the theory of the sovereignty of states has fallen out of favour. What justification does our government possess for a military presence in either locale? “We don’t like what you’re doing so we’re gonna make you stop and do what we say.”
?!!
Someone really forgot to think about the consequences of this rationale. The moral authority of the state is the consent of the governed? Excuse me, but this is the democratic fallacy. Bluntly, the only differences now between the individual and the state are mere numbers, a measure of historical inertia, and the ability to project force.
“But what they are doing is wrong/evil!” Indeed, and if that’s your rationale, I can point you towards a few closer targets, such as your local state/provincial and federal governments. I’m sure we can underearth some local evil if we looked.
“Doesn’t matter. It’s a question of proportion.” Fine – we are better than they are, so we are going to run their lives for them. For how long? You want to mess up their lives for a few years, and then run off all virtuous while chaos and bloodshed descends? Or stay until they are “just like us”. (Ugh). Hello, Empire!
Choices: (1) it’s for our good, or (2) it’s for their good.
There better be a flaw in this screed…