As I indicated in yesterday's post, the Harper Conservatives seem very selective in 'standing up for the vulnerable'; they just don't seem to have what it takes to do the real heavy lifting that is required in our troubled world, preferring instead to utter bellicose rhetoric and put our young men and women in harm's way battling an enemy that defies traditional methods of combat.
Globe reader Andrew van Velzen of Toronto offers his view of their performance thus far:
Stephen Harper badly wants to be a player – a contender, if you will – on the world stage (On Balance, Harper Is Right – editorial, Oct. 8). But Canada’s symbolic military contribution to the air assault on Islamic State targets won’t do it.And speaking of protecting the vulnerable, National Post letter writer John Shaw of Newmarket makes this point:
Canada has lost a huge amount of credibility on foreign affairs under Mr. Harper’s tutelage. Just look at the climate change file (Tories Behind On Climate Targets – Oct. 8). If Mr. Harper wants the world to notice him, how about committing Canada to working diligently for a political solution to the Syrian civil war, even if it means talking with Iran and Bashar al-Assad? Better yet, let’s settle thousands of Syrian refugees in Canada. That would be a concrete and positive step.
Maybe then the world would begin to show Mr. Harper some of the respect he so craves.
The arrogant idea that Canada can bomb people in Iraq into a more peaceful existence is being widely promoted. The reality is that there are now more innocent civilians being killed and even more bad guys than before the last Gulf War. ISIS has skillfully manipulated politicians, such as Stephen Harper, to act exactly as they wish — and war is exactly what these groups thrive on.
Memories are short, Lorne. The United States carpet bombed Vietnam -- and lost.
ReplyDeleteSomehow, with each new engagement, Owen, we are supposed to believe that the lessons of history, however recent, do not apply.
DeleteHarper could very eloquently make the case that this was a very noble war by volunteering himself, or his son, or even his Cons Cabinet to lead our troops into combat.
ReplyDeleteRecall what Ron Paul, one of the contenders against Mitt Romney in the Republican primary had said about the latter. He (Paul) had personally seen combat as a Navy fighter jet pilot in the Korean War but he noted that neither Romney nor any one of his five sons had seen any military service. Neither had they even served in their country's military. And yet Romney appeared very ready to send other people's sons and daughters to die in combat. For that, he had called Romney a chickenhawk, which, it would appear, would also be very appropriately applied to Harper as well.
It is an apt term, Anon, for all those of Harper's ilk.
DeleteYou might like this Lorne:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/we-are-angry-and-we-have-adjectives/
Thanks, Karen. A very perceptive reading of Harper! I enjoyed the read.
Delete