| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Linda McQuaig says moving closer to U.S. promotes war, not peacemaking - Canada |
| 2005-04-24 |
| A fisking of this above commentary. A common complaint is that revelations from the Gomery inquiry have brought the operation of the federal government effectively to a halt. One front that Ottawa seems to keep doggedly moving ahead on — regrettably — is our military integration with the U.S. Oh? You mean because the public finally knows that the ruling party was the most correct in the history of the nation? Or that the ruling party was exposed as trying to cover this up before the recent elections? Or that they had used the power of the state to censor news about the scandal? Or that they tried to renege on providing the opposition to call for a new election? This news is making the Candian public unhappy and that's BAD. And the horror of working with the US Military. Oh, the humanity! As I recall, the US and Canada have a long military history together, especially the Navy. Why? because the Canadian has always been an extension of the Royal Navy. See Histories of WWI and WWII. The Canadians also fought with us in Korea, although they didn't attend out Soueast Asia wargame. Canadian sharpshooters from the Pricess Pats were renowed in Afghanistan for they accuracy. And now that the Chimperor Bushitler is the President, all of that it tossed overboard? I think the Canadian prople know better than that. Indeed, while the Gomery issue built to a crescendo last week, hardly any attention was paid to the release of a defence policy review that signalled Ottawa's intention to make the Canadian military more part of the U.S. war machine — a change that would likely offend most Canadians if they were aware of it. U.S. war machine? You mean the fine members of the US Armed Services who have protected this nation, and our allies (including Canada), who defeated the Kaiser, Hitler, Tojo and Communism allowing the world to live in a better world? To use such a phrase would make many Americans consider whether Canada should be inside or outside our Defense perimeter. Of course, it wasn't stated like that. Of course not! They probably used strange words like "mutual benefit" or "defend North America" or "Islamofascists want to kill us or make us dhimmis". Rather, the change was billed as part of our "new, more sophisticated approach to our relationship with the United States." US: We believe that Islamofascists exist in Canada who want to do us harm. We will do everything in our power to prevent that, including restricting access to the US. Canada: How can we help (knowing 70+% of Canada's economy is based on trade with the US)? US: That is very sophisticated of you. In essence, this "more sophisticated" approach boils down to linking our military operations more with Washington's. "Today our ships integrate seamlessly with U.S. Navy formations," the review notes enthusiastically, holding up this model of "interoperability." Just the same as the Canadian Navy has done since WWII. And NATO. As I recall, Canada's special NATO role was ASW, which is just one of the roles the US Navy does. Of course, Canada has a long history of military co-operation with the U.S., but the Bush administration's more aggressive military stance has threatened to change the nature of that relationship. Washington wants us to join their global war against "terror" — a murky, open-ended war that allows the U.S. to intervene anywhere in the world A report in the Wall Street Journal last month described a new top-level Pentagon planning document which calls for the U.S. military to become more "proactive" and "focused on changing the world instead of just responding to conflicts." Duh. It is a forward offensive strategy, as America has always fought. Where we can find Islamofascists, we will put them out of business, one way or another. You see, Americans are actually offended that these backward, hateful miscreants want to kill us and impose their pre-medeival laws and culture upon us. You know, the one that wouldn't allow you to write your This is hair-raising Canadians have no interest in being part of an aggressive force bent on remaking the world. remake the world=kill Islamofascists before they can kill us. But Ottawa's defence review, part of its overall foreign policy review, portrays our defence needs as essentially the same as Washington's: "(M)ost of the new dangers to the United States are no less risks to Canada." MUST.GET.STRONGER.CLUEBAT. Do you think the Caliphate will exempt Canada? Pshhhhaw. In fact, our situations are very different. Few terrorists want to attack us, because we don't have a long history of intervening in other countries the way Washington has. For that matter, Washington exaggerates its own vulnerability in order to keep Americans willing to go to war. US: We had 3,000 dead, of which several hundred were Canadians murdered by islamofascists and we are determined to stop them from repeating this. We know they are still trying to kill us and we will do everything possible to prevent them from carrying out their designs. Linda: Oh, your just making this up. Canadians are overwhelmingly resistant to the kind of military adventurism favoured by hawks in the Bush administration. Americans are also against military adventurism as every servicemember's life is valuable. However, our leadership is willing to pro-actively seek out the enemy and try to wipe them out in their dens, before they can get here. See, Americans don't want to die, nor do they want to be dhimmis. They want to be free and are willing to fight to preserve our freedom. Let's say the Islamofascists smuggled WMD into North American through Canada and used the US's tradional lax border controls at this border to get into the US and kill many Americans. The American people would demand the border be severely restricted. That would create severe economic problems for Canada. At the same time, we're willing to put money and manpower into maintaining peacekeeping forces around the world. Translation: Canadians are too wimpy to fight and can only be soldiers where there is no fighting. If we associate our military with peacekeeping — as the government no doubt hopes we will — we'll be more inclined to accept the massive $13 billion increase in military spending Ottawa has proposed. But, with Ottawa's emphasis on integrating Canada's defence policy with Washington's, it's not peacekeeping but war-making that's likely to be on the agenda. And let Chimperor Bushitler triumph in democratizing the most backward part of the world, draining the swamp and making modern 'liberals' look stoopid? |
| Posted by:Brett |
| #17 Sobiesky: I don't see a problem with the Canadians saying their ships are World Class. Third World Class, but still... |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-04-24 10:46:19 PM |
| #16 LOL! Mrs. Davis! Good one! |
| Posted by: Quana 2005-04-24 8:42:12 PM |
| #15 Jarhead, you are the |
| Posted by: Godfather of Soul 2005-04-24 7:43:37 PM |
| #14 I personally like being called a 'war machine', tis' kind of sexy sounding. And as Nigel Tufnel used ta say "what's wrong with being sexy?" |
| Posted by: Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead 2005-04-24 7:34:16 PM |
| #13 .com, you can review the whole mighty fleet of canuck navy. linky It approximates Croatian Navy in strenght. ;-) Don't go to the link that says Navy Life. It notes 'world class vessels', telling ya right of the bat. Despite the sad state of affairs, though, seems that the canuck navy did not lose their sense of humor. |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-04-24 7:33:26 PM |
| #12 Brett, You may be interested in the Reuben James on whom you apparently had no friends. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-04-24 6:49:01 PM |
| #11 Her panties are bunched because the current budget on the table increases money to the Canadian defense forces who have been cut to nothing by the socialists and their anti military progrom. She is also mad that this brings Canada close to the US defense establishment again. She misses the obvious. Canada's ground pounders can't currently get anywhere quickly without US support. This was brought home after the Tsunami. Canada's military was ready to render aid but had no way to get there. "All surplus US air support was already in use." Had the government of Canada been on better military terms with the US this might not have been a problem. Message sent, message recieved. This dumb commie bitch didn't get CCed and is too stuipid to understand it anyway. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-04-24 6:42:43 PM |
| #10 Excellent, Brett! Kudos! I'm a little curious about one thing I believe she's attributing to PM Martin (?): "Today our ships integrate seamlessly with U.S. Navy formations..." Um, hasn't the Canadian Navy substantively been reduced to a shadow of its former self? Run aground, so to speak, and unable to adequately offer even self-defense, much less serve to appreciably augment the US Navy in defending North America? Unless the stories posted here on RB about these impressions were untrue, then something's amiss with this quote. My first thought when I read it was, "Huh? I thought the Missing Man formation was only used ceremonially to honor a lost comrade - and involved aircraft!" Sheesh. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-04-24 6:29:57 PM |
| #9 Good stuff Brett! Small point the US was involved in ASW in the Atlantic a tad prior to 1942. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-04-24 6:13:18 PM |
| #8 Oh, wotta McQuaigmire! |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2005-04-24 6:01:07 PM |
| #7 Thank you, Steve White. SteveS, that is correct. The Canadians were the NATO ASW lead. This allowed the USN and Royal Navy to focus on other areas. Canada had been heavily involved in WWII ASW, and were involved from 1939, not 1942 like the US. Al, I don't care about her either, but I just had to fisk this commentary in the Toronto |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-04-24 5:01:59 PM |
| #6 member of Canadian parliament IIRC |
| Posted by: too true 2005-04-24 4:57:56 PM |
| #5 Who is Linda McQuaig, and why do I care about this windbag? Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2005-04-24 4:50:30 PM |
| #4 This may be the zenith of support for Paul Martin. What I find shocking is that she did not have a single word to say about the U. N., the true guarantor of Canadian security. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-04-24 4:30:27 PM |
| #3 Ouch. Not only is she and the liberal party going down in flames, Brett kicks them in the teeth on the way down. Nice frisking of a corrupt and soon (hopefully) to be out of power party. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-04-24 4:24:01 PM |
| #2 I have nothing to add to that prolonged battering, but I am curious about this bit: ...Canada’s special NATO role was ASW.... I hadn't heard that before. I knew the Great Lakes were pretty much sub-free, but I figured that was due to the sea lamprey traps in the St. Lawrence. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-04-24 4:20:48 PM |
| #1 Cheez, Brett, you're not supposed to leave welts and bruises :-) Very nice fisking. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-04-24 4:05:42 PM |