Toronto Escorts

Bush prods Canadians

Questor

New member
Sep 15, 2001
4,552
1
0
One conservative with his head screwed on the right way, for a change.

December 14, 2004
Bush evoking World War II
By David Orchard

“Evoking World War II, Bush prods Canadians,� read the headlines after the U.S. president’s recent visit to Canada. Mr. Bush used the keynote speech of his Canadian visit to “stiffen Ottawa’s resolve,� read one commentary and, seeking to rally support for his position in Iraq, Mr. Bush quoted a 1942 speech by Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King: “We must also go out and meet the enemy before he reaches our shores. We must defeat him before he attacks us, before our cities are laid to waste.�

Listening to Mr. Bush use this quotation in defence of his actions in Iraq one can only be struck by incredulity.

Mackenzie King delivered his message in response to the actions of Nazi Germany -- at the time the greatest military power on earth. It had invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland, committing atrocities later held to be war crimes.

King was urging his countrymen to stand up to the bully of Europe, to come to the aid of Great Britain which, battling under the leadership of Winston Churchill, stood almost alone against the might of the Third Reich.

Where is the parallel today? The U.S. is by far the world’s most powerful nation, with an arsenal and military budget roughly equal to that of the rest of the world combined. In comparative and absolute terms U.S. power vastly exceeds that of World War II Germany. It is the U.S. that has invaded a succession of countries in recent decades, in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia -- leaving six million killed and wounded in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos alone.

Under Prime Minister Diefenbaker Canada said no to the U.S. request to send troops to Vietnam. And history has proved our country correct in that decision.

con't
 

Questor

New member
Sep 15, 2001
4,552
1
0
David Orchard con't...

So what exactly is it that Canadians are being “prodded� by Mr. Bush to do today?

U.S. forces have attacked and are now occupying Iraq. Helping the U.S. in its military occupation would be the opposite of what Mr. King was urging -- he was calling for resistance to a powerful, armed occupier that, in blatant contravention of international law, had invaded several countries and clearly planned to invade more, using the raw materials of each occupied nation to fuel its war machine.

Can any one suggest that Iraq in 2003, essentially defenceless as has now been universally accepted -- under sanctions for ten years, incapable of even feeding its own people, was about to invade the U.S. or Canada to gain control of our resources? Is it not the U.S.A. which is openly seizing Iraq’s oil fields? And, contrary to the pre-war hype, it is the U.S., not Iraq, that possesses, and is using, weapons of mass destruction -- waging a low-intensity nuclear war in Iraq using depleted uranium weaponry, which will leave a legacy of radioactive contamination for generations to come.

In the mid-1990s I had the chance to visit a hospital in central Vietnam for those deformed by U.S. aerial spraying of Agent Orange and other chemical weapons. It is difficult to find words to describe the suffering involved, but Mr. Bush’s policy of using depleted uranium, helicopter gunships and B52 bombers to bring “liberty and democracy� to the Iraq brings back the full memory of their faces.

Mackenzie King’s invocations to resist tyranny would apply to those resisting foreign occupation and invasion, not to those advocating the conquest of small countries by larger ones.

Canada played a proud and unstinting role in defeating Nazi Germany. As the son of one who gave several years of her life to the fight against Hitler’s juggernaut I find offensive the idea that Canadians need to have their resolve “stiffened� in defence of liberty. It also does not square with the historical record. Canada was on the ground in that mighty conflict, which cost over 40 million lives, two years before the U.S. which only joined after it was attacked itself at Pearl Harbour in 1941.

The U.S. invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq are in flagrant violation of international law spelled out by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, the Charter of the United Nations, and numerous international treaties and conventions predating both -- which sanctions the use of force by a country on only two grounds: in self-defence against a direct or ongoing attack, or when authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Neither applies in Iraq. The vast majority of Canadians supported their government under Jean Chrétien in 2003, when it refused to participate in the assault on Iraq, as they did with John Diefenbaker’s refusal to go to Vietnam. Both Canadians and their government stood -- and stand today -- clearly on the side of international law.

International law is not some trifle to be overridden at the whim of any country. It is the very essence of how nations can live together without bloodshed and has been arrived at only through countless wars and untold agony. Without it we are back to the rule of the jungle.

If anything it is our resolve to defend the rule of international law which needs to be stiffened, not our willingness to sanction its breach.

-----------------------

David Orchard is the author of the bestseller, The Fight for Canada - Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism, and ran for the leadership of the federal Progressive Conservative Party in 1998 and 2003. He farms at Borden, SK and can be reached at tel (306) 652-7095, e-mail: davidorchard@sasktel.net http://www.davidorchard.com
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I don't think anyone thinks Iraq is WWII (except Pecker who thinks Bush is Hitler). The POTUS wants Canada to step up to a leadership role in the fight against terrorism, there have been numerous threads (one going now) on the need for Canada to assume a more responsible and powerful role in the world.

It's my opinion that you've gotten lazy and cheap as defense goes, you complain about being in the shadow of the US but don't do anything significant yourselves. The title to Mr. Orchard's book is quite telling "Resistance to American Expansionism" - perhaps you could be "for" something and go out and lead on it.

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
onthebottom said:
I don't think anyone thinks Iraq is WWII (except Pecker who thinks Bush is Hitler).....OTB
bot,

Not true, told you once before I no longer think Dubya is like Hitler. Remember this prior post of mine:

:D George W. Bush is No Adolph Hitler ......9/27/04

OK have to agree with you guys on this one that George W. Bush is No Adolph Hitler

A favorite pasttime among the Bush-bashing crowd is to compare our current ethically-challenged President with the madman of all madmen -- Nazi leader Adolph Hitler.

Granted, valid comparisons exist: Bush, like Hitler, believes war is the most politically-expedient means to an end. Like Hitler, Bush has built a vast police state to spy on his countrymen (and women). Hitler called it the Gestapo. Bush calls his Homeland Security.

Both men exploited political division, polarization and fear. Both appealed to the extreme right wing. Like Hitler, Bush shows signs of cracking under the strain. A report by a prominent DC psychiastrist calls the American president a "paranoid, delusional meglomaniac." They called Hitler the same thing.

But Bush falls short in key comparisons to the German leader. Hitler served in the German Army and actually experienced real combat in WWI. Hitler also liked the excitement of fighting in a war. Hitler was given the job of despatch-runner. It was a dangerous job as it involved carrying messages from regimental headquarters to the front-line. Hitler won five medals including the prestigious Iron Cross during the First World War. His commanding officer wrote: "As a dispatch-runner, he has shown cold-blooded courage and exemplary boldness. Under conditions of great peril, when all the communication lines were cut, the untiring and fearless activity of Hitler made it possible for important messages to go through". Although much decorated in the war, Hitler only reached the rank of corporal. Although Hitler's IQ was never officially measured, doctors estimated it at around 145. Bush's IQ is a state secret. If it was ever measured, the result probably disappeared along with his military records but any close study of his actions suggests it can't be much above that of the average three-minute egg.

Hitler was a hypnotic speaker with a masterful command of the language. He could motivate huge crowds with his powerful speeches.

Bush has trouble stringing enough words together to complete a simple, declarative sentence and would have trouble talking a whore into bed even if he paid in advance.

So it's both unfair and insulting to compare George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler.

But unfair to whom?
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
LOL,

Hitler did not have a Schwanz Cheyninger to direct him behind the scene.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Pecker,

How cleaver, so you think Bush is worse than Hitler, I'll let that apply itself to your credibility and objectiveness. Don't worry, there are many as equally as challenged as yourself who will see you as a messiah.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
yychobbyist said:
What a ridiculous statement. Canadians are "for" many things internationally and we do lead on things. Strangely, though, those things we are for are humanitarian, internationalist and cooperative approaches to conflict resolution. In short, we're for things that U.S. foreign policy at the moment knows nothing about.
What a ridiculous response. Just admit to being international pussies and get it over with.

Humanitarian - how is a 15B commitment to Aids?

Internationalist - what ever that means, getting on your knees for old Europe I would guess, you've got us on that one. I'd counter with our efforts to broker a Mid-East peace.

Conflict resolution - give me a break, with what, harsh words.

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
US foreign policy right now is an unmitigated disaster.
Don't worry, folks, they'll realize it sooner or later.
We just have to distance ourselves from this evil war machine in the interim.
:D
I'd rather be an "international pussy" than an "international criminal".
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Bush and his administration have considered themselves outside of the normal sphere of international law - they want and NEED to be able to act unilaterally in this ongoing mission. They have dismissed the UN as outmoded and quaint.
The notion of "preventive war" espoused by this administration is stepping back a good hundred years to the bad old days of empire.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Re: OTB, please explain yourself.

DonQuixote said:
With all due respect, OTB, the problem I have, as others have,
is the Bush doctrine of preemption and just war.

The following article appeared in the Winter 2004-05 edition
of "Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly".

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04winter/wester.htm

The author concludes Bush's doctrine of preemption and the invasion
of Iraq failes crucial ethical tests.

But, OTB and others seem to think ethics is something taught in
a college course in philosophy but has nothing to do with the real
world.

The dismissal of ethical issues as irrelevant is very disturbing to me.
Am I to conclude that Bush is above the law and ethics? How can
you condone his action when even this publication of the US Army
War College chastises him?
With all due respect who's talking about the Bush doctrine? The post was that Canada should step up, is it your assertion that because Canada doesn't agree with US Foreign policy it need not step up? Confused logic I would say.

If US policy is so offensive (pun intended) to Canadians, perhaps they should have one of their own and the resources to partake in carrying it out.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
DonQuixote said:
Please read my post and article sited on my previous posting
on "Canada's Global Role: A strategic Assessment of its Military
Power"

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04autumn/nunez.htm

My point is that Bush doesn't have much credibility in prodding
Canadians when his own credibility is an issue. In short, he doesn't
have clean hands.
Awsome article, I agree with almost everything said including:

Canada generally worships at the United Nations altar, whereas the United States is skeptical about the United Nations’ ability to provide timely and sound handling of global problems. In truth, both positions are somewhat flawed, because one state is trying to use an international organization to magnify its modest power, while the other state is more eager to use its superpower status to disengage from slow UN deliberations to craft its own solutions to security threats.

On the whole, Canada is a middle-power—it possesses a great-power economy and a less-than-middle-power military.

Canadians see themselves as global peacekeepers, and this is reinforced in the Canadian press, vividly displayed on their currency, and echoed in conversations on the street. But the reality is different from the perception.

Using United Nations peacekeeping operations statistics, the Canadian contribution to UN missions is now rather small. Of 92 countries furnishing forces, Canada ranks 34th, placing it in the middle third. With just 239 service members deployed, Canada pales in comparison to, say, Pakistan with 5,252 on UN missions.

The logic of a diminished Canadian military is easy to grasp. Internationally, Canada enjoys the security umbrella afforded by the United States. Thus, it acts as a free rider and can fund its defense on the cheap. Monies not devoted to defense are used to pay for domestic programs

In 1968 Pierre Trudeau ascended as the new
Liberal Party Prime Minister to further change the military. Under his leadership, Canada reduced its forces in Europe (under NATO) by half. Additionally, peacekeeping declined in priority.17 During this period Canada’s navy lost its only aircraft carrier, its army said goodbye to a number of proud regiments, and its air force was forced to wait another decade to receive new aircraft.18
A huge challenge for Prime Minister Martin is to find a path midway between shrill defiance and fawning lockstep accommodation of the United States. Thumbing your nose at Uncle Sam, aside from poisoning relations, also serves to fan the flames of anti-Americanism, and this damages Ottawa’s long-term interests. Rolling over for Washington makes Canada look weak and either unable to set its own course or unwilling to offer an alternative.
On top of this, Canada should refrain from the temptation to act as the moral superior in the partnership, taking the “role of provider of wise counsel.�62 Such a haughty position is unwarranted, particularly considering Canadian words versus deeds.63 If it is necessary to advise, do it privately. Remembering Canada’s positive influence on the US entry in World Wars I and II, and Canada’s willingness to make large commitments to back its moral position, should serve as constructive examples of how it can best influence US behavior.
While soft power may be an effective foreign policy approach in this millennium, it is largely ineffective without significant hard power to back it up. And the truth is that today Canada has little hard power. A country that cannot muster and deploy even one self-sufficient brigade to global hot spots is not going to be taken very seriously, and is certainly not a middle power by military measure. The upshot of this is that Canadian concerns about sovereignty over their US relationship require serious reevaluation.

OTB
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
onthebottom said:
I don't think anyone thinks Iraq is WWII (except Pecker who thinks Bush is Hitler). The POTUS wants Canada to step up to a leadership role in the fight against terrorism, there have been numerous threads (one going now) on the need for Canada to assume a more responsible and powerful role in the world.

It's my opinion that you've gotten lazy and cheap as defense goes, you complain about being in the shadow of the US but don't do anything significant yourselves. The title to Mr. Orchard's book is quite telling "Resistance to American Expansionism" - perhaps you could be "for" something and go out and lead on it.

OTB
This isn't what Questor's post was really about. It was about Bush drawing a self-serving and especially idiotic parallel between Canada's response to the aggression of Nazi Germany, and his own invasion because of the so-called threat from Iraq.

It is quite a stretch to characterize Dubya's remarks as urging Canada "to step up to a leadership role in the fight against terrorism...." I think it would be more accurate to categorize his remarks as those of a leader with innocent blood on his hands trying to mask his own misdeeds by invoking comparisons with a historical leader who used legitimate force against a very real threat.

"... Listening to Mr. Bush use this quotation in defence of his actions in Iraq one can only be struck by incredulity.

Mackenzie King delivered his message in response to the actions of Nazi Germany -- at the time the greatest military power on earth. It had invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland, committing atrocities later held to be war crimes.

King was urging his countrymen to stand up to the bully of Europe, to come to the aid of Great Britain which, battling under the leadership of Winston Churchill, stood almost alone against the might of the Third Reich.

Where is the parallel today? The U.S. is by far the world’s most powerful nation, with an arsenal and military budget roughly equal to that of the rest of the world combined. In comparative and absolute terms U.S. power vastly exceeds that of World War II Germany. It is the U.S. that has invaded a succession of countries in recent decades, in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia -- leaving six million killed and wounded in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos alone..."

So, to summarize, Dubya comes up here and makes a keynote address in which he pretends that his *courageous* stand against Iraq and terrorism is the modern day equivalent of Canada's stand against Nazi aggression. That is a truly disgusting comparison. He must have known that most Canadians would be offended to have our stand against the Nazi's mentioned in the same paragraph as his slaughter in Iraq.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts