Friday, February 24, 2006

“To hell with the Afghans”- Latest Poll

According to latest poll (which asks whether or not Canadians support sending troops to Afghanistan to stabilize the country), the vast majority of respondents said no.
This is weird considering this mission has broadside support from the international community and while not entrenched in legislation, received the nod from the United Nations. So it doesn’t have the “unilateral” characteristics of military intervention which Canadians usually frown upon.

So what’s the problem? Are Canadians Isolationists all of a sudden? Is it because the mission is too dangerous? Is it Anti-Americanism veering its ugly head again? Why are Canadians against this mission all of a sudden?

Let’s step back and take a broader look at Canadians’ positions on matter of military intervention. What was the position of the Canadian public when it came to sending troops to Haiti? Mainly positive. In fact the Canadian Liberal-Left took the role as Hawks on the matter. What about the possibility of military intervention in Darfur, Which ex-Liberal MP David Kilgour turned this to be his “cause celebre” at the end of his political career?

So I disagree withJarrett (who btw, I consider to be my political twin, I agree with him on EVERY single point from Economics to Military matters) that this isn’t a step towards “Isolationism” per se, but rather a knee-jerk reaction based on irrational Anti-Bush philosophy. Like everything, hatred for Bush clouds every single thing for many people. They’d be willing to sell their soul to the devil if it meant a political setback for the President.

I don’t think I can summarize it any better than The Amazing Wonderdog on the kick-ass new (Canadian) military blog: The Torch.

For those opposed to our presence in Afghanistan, the question is quite simple. Which is more important: to stabilize the country and benefit the human beings who reside there, or to frustrate American interests? And if frustrating American interests is more important than human beings, what kind of a humanitarian are you?

4 Comments:

At Friday, 24 February, 2006, Blogger Nick Kouvalis said...

Thanks for the link. Great blog.

 
At Friday, 24 February, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

You probably noticed that Bush haters really just _hate_ him. They usually cannot even tell why.

One reason I heard lately was the American refusal to sign the climate treaty. I told the person in question that the US refused to sign the treaty under Clinton and that Bush had nothing to do with it.

His answer was, and I quote, "you are not going to tell me that Bush is in favour of the climate treaty, are you?".

That was more or less the best reason to hate George Bush that people could give me.

I reject insane ramblings about 100,000 victims of the American invasion (if they ever find all the bodies or if Iraqis notice that indeed so many are missing, we can talk again), conspiracy theories about oil (which liberals think is amazingly valuable, probably because they don't know how much of the price is taxes), conspiracy theories about Jewish organ pirates (that one is just out now), or about Bush's racism (the left hasn't quite yet noticed that racism is now a left-wing attribute; I know few right-wingers who have racist views).

Among liberals the only entity that is more to blame for all that goes wrong in the world is Israel, usually Ariel Sharon personally.

Never mind that the Taliban mistreated women. Never mind that Saddam killed more people in a year than all Americans and terrorists together since the invasion. Women's rights and lives don't count. Real evil is now defined by conspiracy theories.

If Saddam killed more Iraqis than the Americans did, then Americans must have killed more than we have heard of.

Logical.

And all right-wingers are racist.

I myself for example hate Arabs. Or why could I possibly support Israel and reject the "Palestinian cause" just because 80% of them want to kill me (I know this because of the election results there). I saw a video of a Hamas terrorist a few days ago. He wants to drink my blood or something, because he belongs to a nation that drinks blood (his words, I couldn't come up with stuff like that about Arabs).

And Sweden wants to give them money.

Stacked around the speaker in the video were weapons of all kinds. None of them looked particularly cheap. And most of them I could not clearly identify. But I know what they are meant to be used for.

As for Canadian troops in Afghanistan, I take it that George Bush just has to announce that he doesn't like Afghanis any more and wishes the country to fall back under Al-Qaeda rule. That would make liberals want to fight!

 
At Saturday, 25 February, 2006, Blogger David M. McClory said...

I want all these positive developments with our Military's purpose and dignity.I support what Dubya is (often incompetently) doing in the Islamic World (it's not just the Mitddle East).

However, in talking to my friends and co-workers, I note that we are not emotionally prepared for what the military will evolve into.

The "peacekeeping nation" mythology is deeply ingrained. They really believe we live in a new world that does not need the harder and mature things of life and history.

 
At Thursday, 15 July, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

借貸 借錢 票貼

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home