Canada: Afraid to Take a Stand

"Well, Iraq was the big story," Peter Mansbridge said in opening The National recently, chatting with Ottawa correspondent Eric Sorensen. Agreeing, Sorensen asked, "Will this country support a U.S.-led war in Iraq, even if the UN Security Council does not?" Peter tried to muster tension, but his heart wasn't in it. January was ending and February loomed and the answer wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

"This government has not been clear on that point," Opposition Leader Stephen Harper said lamely. Added NDPer Bill Blaikie: "The Prime Minister owes the Canadian people clearer answers," qualifying it with a modest "it seems to me."

Next came Ordinary Canadians (unidentified). "I thought we were mostly peacekeepers, but they seem to want to go to war," said Unidentified Number 1. "The U.S. is still our best and biggest ally," said Unidentified Number 2, thus fulfilling the CBC's mandate to give all sides of the story without letting any intelligence slip through. Minister of National Defence John McCallum talked about "prudent planning," but assured Canadians that such good housekeeping "doesn't reflect any commitment."

Three days later, Prime Minister Jean Chretien gave us the definitive Canadian position on the war question — and every other possible question in life. "I find it a bit futile to position yourself," he told the Canadian Press. So far, no U.S. politician has figured out a way to saw Canada off and float us out to sea — though they would dearly like to. In this sense, Mr. Chretien's "position" is perfectly logical, if lacking courage and morality. Mind you, minutes before war comes — if it does — Canada will probably pull a France. Even as President Jacques Chirac was saying "non" to war without a new UN resolution, the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle had left Toulon steaming eastward.

The U.S. has been explaining the need for military action in Iraq since Sept. 11, when President George W. Bush declared that "America would not distinguish between terrorism and those nations that harbour terrorists." It has repeated the ABCs of its case: Iraq's refusal to comply with 16 UN resolutions demanding it disarm; disclosures from Khidhir Hamza, the scientist who headed Iraq's nuclear program; Iraq's past use of chemical weapons and aggressive actions in the region; Saddam Hussein's personal subsidizing of suicide bombers along with his blood-curdling threats. But America is unlikely to persuade people who walk about with sacks over their heads rather than hear facts that would confound their credo. When the situation in Iraq is resolved, Washington will have time to take stock of its allies and alliances.

Canada is a member of NATO, a defence alliance built on the premise that an attack on one is an attack on all. Having members of an alliance choose which action they feel like supporting makes as much sense as an army where the soldiers vote on which battle they will attend. Waiting for Iraq to further develop biological and nuclear weapons so that first Israel (which was the target of Saddam's scuds in the Gulf War) and then America and Europe can be blackmailed is simply not a viable option for a decent world.

Unlike Canada, Europe has at least a historical excuse for its cowardly position. It has the enemy in its midst. Britain and France set about dismantling the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th century. There was no independent Iraq then, no Syria, Jordan or Lebanon. The colonial masters in London and Paris made all sorts of promises — both emotional and practical — to get the Arabs onside against the Turks and created these countries to serve their own imperial ambitions. A sort of Lawrence of Arabia mentality is still found in British bureaucrats and policy makers. This affects immigration policy and law enforcement with the result that some of the most rabid Islamist mosques have flourished in the U.K.

Quote:

The future for America will lie not in static alliances like NATO but in some association of powers that genuinely holds certain values and will actively play its role in supporting them — rather than going for a free ride like Canada — and in flexible alliances to respond to changing situations. Russia will be an important ally in the fight against Islamists. The future for Canada, if its gutless policy continues this way, will be a small footnote in history pointing out that Canadians tried to have their cake and eat it — and ended up with a spotty face from scoffing too much icing.

Shame!

Canada can be an enigma to me at times...

It must be weird to basically live your life like an American but wake up every morning and see a Frenchman in charge of your country. It's as if the British Empire lost the Napoleonic Wars or something.

The one thing that differentiates leaders from followers: It's possible that something goes wrong in an attack on Iraq--not that we lose the war, but that something goes wrong and hurts Bush politically down the road (or that he suffers the fate of his father, conquering hero 20 months before the election, defeated for re-election).

I think both Bush and Blair are aware of the political risks (especially Blair, given the idiot pinkos still in powerful positions in the Labour Party). But it's also clear that both men are willing to risk and perhaps even sacrifice their political careers in order to do the right thing, the necessary thing.

Chretien doesn't have the nerve to do that. Schroeder obviously didn't have the nerve--he deliberately chose to advertise doing the wrong thing in order to save his butt. Chirac is motivated by his personal corruption. Bill Clinton never would have taken this sort of risk.

But Bush and Blair are willing to do so, willing to risk their political future in support of a righteous cause. That's why they're leaders and why the rest of 'em are weasels.

"Even as President Jacques Chirac was saying "non" to war without a new UN resolution, the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle had left Toulon steaming eastward."

Well, they have to be in a position to surrender.

"Even as President Jacques Chirac was saying "non" to war without a new UN resolution, the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle had left Toulon steaming eastward."

I am a little concerned about this move. This may not be a covert sign of capitulation. We do not know the orders under which the deGaulle sailed.

If I recall my history, during WWII, a new US general by the name of Dwight Eisenhower attempted to land US troops on the shores of Tunesia, North Africa as part of Operation Torch. The Vishy French protested this as an invasion of their "territory" and ordered french soldiers to fire on the Americans landing ashore. Ike, in active negotiations with the commanding french general had to drag the SOB onto the deck of the ship he was on to show him:
A)That his troops were killing allied soldiersand
B) that those allied soldiers were kicking their ass!!!

Whose to say that the french aren't using their only naval carrier to run a little interference.

OK students time for your french dictee'

You know, I had thoughts along those lines myself.

The French certainly have not said what the purpose of sending the aircraft carrier was. They could certainly say that they were protecting French interests in Iraq and set up to block US attacks (taking lessons from Greenpeace).

This is the same CBC(NPR)/Peter Mansbridge that raced over to IRAQ just like Sean Penn, to present the "other side" of the story! 3 US bonehead dim-o-Rats did go over there also, but the media biased as it is, could not get to much material out of them. (they were just babbling inanely)

The difference is that Mansbridge is the host of a daily prime time anti-US propaganda machine. He 'had' to have the approval of the Canadian leftist party.
Don't forget, Canada makes no bones about censorship, they just don't mention some facts.

Cretin is so anxious to define himself/Canada as being different from the USA. I suggest we Americans grant him his request. Close the US borders now. Then he will know he is on the other side of the "line" that defines us!

The labor party in canada is importing muslim voters at a rapid pace. It is the North American hotbed of terrorist hubs.

It makes little difference how canada defines itself on the immediate issue of war in Iraq. They have defined themselves clearly in so many other ways.

Mr cretin and his ilk best head down to Wisconsin and get some cheese to compliment his fine french WHINE.
He best not forget to bring US dollars too, we don't accept looneys. He is a dangerous 'lame duck' leader.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.