E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Linda McQuaig says moving closer to U.S. promotes war, not peacemaking - Canada
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 where they are Islamofascists intending to kill Americans. Oh, but for the old days of simple wars again nation-states. By the way, I just love the was there are quotes around the word terror, as if the war was about something other than Islamofascisits that declared war against all of us, even Canada. Of course they attack the US because they want to knock out the only real threat to them in the west, the US.

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 drivel column? Anyway, our forward offensive strategy has freed 50 million people in two campaigns almost unparelled in the annals of warfare both for their devastating effectiveness and lack of collateral damage, has put Islamofascism on the defensive, and we are tring to establish some semblance of modern political culture in the most trying and backward are of the world so that these killers will no longer attenpt to kill Americans in mass quantities?

This is hair-raising sceery stuff that goes beyond even the frightening notion of pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war has been around since the beginning of mankind. Think of it this way: Self-defense. Now Washington seems to be talking about using its unsurpassed military I salute the members of our Armed Services and the American people for this fact. If it were surpassed, I imagine Canada would be a much less nice place to live with, of, say the Chinese running the place. might to force nations to behave as it wants them to. Actually, our Military is no threat to anyone who isn't sponsoring or harboring Islamofascists who intend to cause mass American casualties. Only the most rabid pro-Washington zealot would fail to see the opportunities for abuse in such unchallenged power.Whoa. Rabid and zealot in the same sentence. Like negative numbers, do 2 negative words negate each other and become a positive? Opportunties for abuses like....deposing Saddam and the Taliban? Allowing Afghans to vote for the fist time and iraqis for the first time in generations? Unchallenged? WTF?? having observed the world since 9-11, I can say that pretty much everything the US tried to do was challenged by most of the world, most of the West, the MSM, most of the Dhims. Even by you, I am sure.

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 2005-04-24
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=62160