If we run, then we will be Spain.
Consider the losses during the First World War, the Second World War (particularly Vimy Ridge and Dieppe), the Korean War and now. As terrible as any loss of life may be, the losses incurred recently are nowhere near the losses of the past and we were then far from running.
If we can't afford lives, then we cannot afford surrender. The Afghanis will lose the most. By allowing terrorists to threaten us and alter our foreign policy, we put ourselves at risk, anyway. Our opinions and motions on the world stage will be meaningless. Canada will be nothing, less than air and a dhimmi. I suggest we draw the line in the sand and say it doesn't even begin, let alone end, here.
Let us remember who put us there.
Like it or not, we are there. Let's do some good while we're at it. Someone in the world depends on Canada. We can't afford to let them- nor ourselves- down.
2 comments:
On Sept. 16, 2002, the Commons committee on foreign affairs held an emergency meeting on what
Canada's role should be in a U.S.-led attack on Iraq. Its decision was to offer diplomatic
expertise to solve the Iraq problem, although they couldn't agree whether the nation could
serve as an impartial mediator in the process.
"How could we possibly pretend to set ourselves up as an impartial mediator?" asked Canadian
Alliance defence critic Leon Benoit, pointing out that Canada joined the U.S. in the Gulf War
in 1991. "It's an insane idea."
"The UN is being bullied by the United States," said then-NDP leader Alexa McDonough.
"What Canada needs is to say we will be there to work in active collaboration with the UN
to help make sure that those pressures don't produce disastrous results for the world."
In December 2002, a poll commissioned by the CBC, the Toronto Star, and La Presse
showed 41 per cent of Canadians are against an attack, while 40 per cent remain in favour.
In Quebec, the support for joining in an American attack drops dramatically to only 23 per cent. In Alberta, that numbers shoots up to 57 per cent.
Even more interesting: while more than half the country sees "the greatest threat"
as being Saddam Hussein, another 38 per cent say George W. Bush is the one to worry about.
Quotes
Canadian politicians speak on Iraq and Canada's position on a possible attack
"It's a change in time zone. It's not a change in policy."
– Defence Minister John McCallum plays down the implications of moving a team of Canadian officers to Qatar for contingency planning of a possible war Canada hasn't said it would join.
Feb. 11, 2003
"For the sake of my constituents, who are almost overwhelmingly opposed to supporting the
Americans unilaterally in an attack on Iraq, I would have to vote against the government,
and show my lack of confidence in the government, subsequently."
– Liberal MP John Bryden is among those who would say they would not support Canadian
participation if the U.S. attacks Iraq without UN backing. Feb. 11, 2003
"We could wake up one morning and find ourselves reading that bombs are being dropped in Baghdad,
so we don't have an awful lot of time to get this all figured out."
– Liberal MP Art Eggleton, who is a member of the foreign affairs committee, is among those
who says Canada can't keep putting off the issue. Feb. 6, 2003
"The timelines here are short and the need to make a decision cannot be deferred indefinitely."
– Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham agrees that Canada must decide what action it would
take in event of a war. Feb. 6, 2003
"Members would be called on to either support or not support the government's decision.
That is what democracy is all about."
– Opposition House Leader John Reynolds speaks for the Canadian Alliance, which is asking for
all MPs to be allowed to vote on the issue, instead of leaving it up to cabinet to decide.
Feb. 6, 2003
"War has to be the very last resort because of both the long-term consequences in terms of the
political stability of the region, and also of the terrible condition of the present (that)
people of Iraq live in."
– Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham Feb. 6, 2003
"We need to step up the inspection process, we need to make it more robust, and we need to
recognize that in order for it to continue to work, more resources are needed."
– Alexa McDonough, former NDP leader Feb. 6, 2003
"The prime minister is being dangerously ambiguous as to what Canada's position would be...
No one knows where Canada stands. Our allies don't know, our citizens don't know, (Chr??en's)
own government doesn't know."
– Joe Clark, Conservative leader Jan. 26, 2003
"Canada's position is that on matters of peace and security, the international community must
speak and act through the UN Security Council... We believe in multilateralism very strongly."
– Prime Minister Jean Chr??en Jan. 15, 2003
"Some (countries) may say, 'We're doing it only with a UN mandate.' We're saying we much prefer
that, but we may do it otherwise."
– Defence Minister John McCallum Jan. 9, 2003
"It is a grotesque absence of leadership on the part of the prime minister to just kind of shrug
and say, 'Sure Bush, bring on the evidence and then count us in on a war.'"
– Alexa McDonough, former NDP leader Sept. 5, 2002
"The important thing is that always Canada should work closely with its closest allies,
particularly its military allies. That's where our bread is buttered."
– Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper Sept. 17, 2002
"We should be part of a formation of allies that sends a signal to dictators around the world
like Saddam Hussein that we will not tolerate repression of human rights, we will not tolerate
menacing attacks on other countries." – Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance foreign affairs critic
September 2002
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a
good proof, it's because it's proven."
– Prime Minister Jean Chr??en said he wanted to see clear evidence that Baghdad possesses
weapons of mass destruction before Canada would support a U.S.-led strike against Iraq without
UN approval. Sept. 5, 2002
"Nobody is supporting Saddam Hussein, but everybody recognizes that in international politics
you have to have a process. Before you invade a sovereign country there has to be a reason for
it or we're going to (have) international chaos."
– Bill Graham, minister of foreign affairs Feb. 14, 2002
North America was attacked by the Taliban. The Taliban has sent direct threats against Canada. The Taliban threatens Afghani people. Canada accepts these Afghanis as refugees. Therefore it's only logical that Canada has a role in maintaining peace in Afghanistan. This has nothing to do with(how I hate the term) the US using other nations as puppets. Soldiers die. It's a fact of war. Maybe Canada should not have fought in WW2. Let other people fight the Nazis. Let the Jewish people defend themselves. Peace activists should not deny the Afghani people or anyone of basic human rights. Human rights are only valuable if all humans have access to them. Thanks to Canada, Afghani women and children are given shelter from horrifying violent situations.
Here is a quote(I'd rather take a quote from a person living in the field than a gov't critic) from a woman in Afghanistan:
"When the Taliban first left … the women were afraid to go out to the shops or to take their children to a doctor. But now, not only are they doing all of that, they are going out to buy supplies and materials for their business...In a country like Afghanistan, to see this change in such a short period is truly remarkable.”
All this thanks to Canada.
Please visit here for more success stories:
http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/library/stories-en.asp
Post a Comment