Harper,

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Harper's war: Nothing to do with peacekeeping


Harper is mean, condescending and viscerally arrogant, and his nature will ultimately betray him. Until it does, however, he can do enormous damage.




>by Murray Dobbin
May 25, 2006

Brian Mulroney was fond of saying “Give me twenty years and you won't recognize this country.” But he was a piker compared to Stephen Harper who is changing the ethics and political culture of this country faster than Mulroney ever dreamed.

The most obvious case in point is the vote on May 17 that extended Canada's participation in the occupation of Afghanistan until the spring of 2009. The next step in this appalling transformation of Canada into a lap dog of U.S. imperialism will not be far behind. We will agree to NATO's “request” that we take over command of the whole sordid enterprise. It is almost certain to come out at some point that Mr. Harper pushed NATO to make the request.

None of this, of course, should come as any surprise from a man who is infatuated with everything American and contemptuous of his own country and what it has stood for, for decades. Harper has always detested Canada's peacekeeping role, schooled as he was by the Yankee lovers at the Calgary School of political science and its intellectual guru, Tom Flanagan.

How could this happen in a country that is deeply suspicious of American military adventures and committed to the principles of multilateralism?

A good deal of the answer lies in the decay and political corruption of the so-called “natural governing party,” the Liberals. The danger Canada faces at the hands of Stephen Harper is not dissimilar to that experienced by the U.S., despite the enormous differences in political culture. I am reminded here of Ronald Reagan and one of the reasons he was so popular. Most people forget — if they ever knew — that in polling on actual issues, a majority of Americans disagreed with almost everything Reagan did.

So why was he so popular? Because people looked at Reagan, then looked at the Democrats, and concluded one simple thing: Reagan, at least, was a man who believed in what he was doing. Voters were so tired of the opportunism and lack of political principle on the part of the Democrats that they supported a president simply on the basis that at least he believed in something.

The danger in Canada is that many have come to the same conclusion about the Liberals. They have always been a party of opportunists, with an uncanny instinct for where the middle is. Under Paul Martin they were truly a party without principle, vision or ethical core. People remember.

But Stephen Harper is no Ronald Reagan. He is mean, condescending and viscerally arrogant, and his nature will ultimately betray him. Until it does, however, he can do enormous damage. In a Parliament with a separatist party, the Liberals trying to divine what the opportunistic thing to do is on any given issue, and the NDP sticking to its bizarre line that Canadians want it to “make Parliament work,” Harper has been given lots of room to maneuver.

While the vote to extend the occupation is history, its consequences are not irreversible and that is just what Canadians committed to peace and the international rule of law should be working towards. Canadians are divided on this issue in part because they rightly care about the fate of soldiers' lives, but also because the facts are elusive and the peace movement is weak.

Yet the facts are overwhelmingly on the side of Canadian values and against the Afghanistan adventure. Just as the debate in the Commons began, the Polaris Institute revealed just how much this commitment has distorted Canada's role in the world. The decision to support the U.S. in Afghanistan (which the Liberals admit was done to appease the U.S. over our decision to stay out of Iraq) has already cost $4.1 billion since Sept. 11, 2001.

Afghan and related operations account for 68 per cent of the $6 billion spent on international missions during that time frame. Equally disturbing: according to Polaris, during that same period Canada devoted a mere $214 million, about three per cent of international mission spending, on United Nations missions.

Our “peacekeeping” is a joke: We now have just 59 military personnel devoted to UN missions. Canada, which virtually invented peacekeeping, once ranked among the top 10 contributors to UN missions in terms of military personnel. We are now 50th.

Equally important, however, is the actual nature of this farcical “humanitarian” effort. So few investigative journalists know the facts or will tell them, it is not surprising people are bamboozled by the warmongers. But one who does have the jam to tell the story is columnist Eric Margolis. He is worth quoting:

“Afghanistan's complexity and lethal tribal politics have been marketed to the public by government and media as a selfless crusade to defeat the 'terrorist' Taliban, implant democracy, and liberate Afghan women. Afghanistan is part of the 'world-wide struggle against terrorism,' we are told.

“None of this is true. In 1989, at the end of the Soviet occupation, Afghanistan fell into anarchy and civil war. An epidemic of banditry and rape ensued. A village prayer leader, Mullah Omar, who lost an eye in the anti-Soviet jihad, armed a group of 'talibs' (religious students), and set about defending women from rape. Aided by Pakistan, Taliban stopped the epidemic of rape and drug dealing that had engulfed Afghanistan, and imposed order based on harsh tribal and Sharia religious law.”

The Taliban stopped the production of opium and heroin — except in the area controlled by the Northern Alliance: the thugs, drug pushers and rapists who are now Canada's “allies.” The Taliban were hardly humanitarian and imposed an extremely harsh Sharia regime on the country. But with them gone, the epidemic of rape has returned and our “allies” are responsible for 80 to 90 per cent of the world's heroin.

It is important also to revisit the original relationship between the U.S. and the Taliban and the U.S. invasion. The U.S. poured millions into Taliban coffers until, says Margolis, about four months before 9/11. It was only cut off when the regime refused to sign a contract with U.S. oil giant Unocal to build a pipeline south from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan.

It is also surely relevant that the Taliban knew nothing of the plan to attack the U.S. (The plot was hatched in Germany.) Much was made of the fact that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. But Bin Laden was a national hero wounded six times in the anti-Soviet struggle — which the U.S. financed. When the Taliban offered to turn him over to an international tribunal upon seeing evidence of his guilt in 9/11, the U.S. refused. And then invaded. This was by any international legal standard a totally illegal war, which could only have been justified if Afghanistan threatened the U.S. It is also an illegal occupation.

This is the “mission” that Stephen Harper, Yankee sycophant and budding warmonger, has “extended.” The mission is not intended to ever end because its purpose was and is to ensure the U.S. permanent access to Mideast oil and Afghani land for pipelines. But end it will — just as every other colonial occupation of Afghanistan has ended — when the occupiers tire of bleeding. Too bad dozens of Canadian soldiers, who should be peacemakers, will have to die to teach us an old lesson.

Murray Dobbin writes from Vancouver. This column has appeared in The Tyee.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Darkbeaver wrote:None of this, of course, should come as any surprise from a man who is infatuated with everything American and contemptuous of his own country and what it has stood for, for decades.

This describes every right wingnut on the forum.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Can someone explain to me, why 18 years ago, northen alliance were our ennemy, alquada/taliban through mujahadeen/freedom fighters were our allies?

I cant understand why people from the right, doesnt see this as an evidence that our leaders judge their ennemy from their own interest.
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
Re: RE: Harper,

aeon said:
Can someone explain to me, why 18 years ago, northen alliance were our ennemy, alquada/taliban through mujahadeen/freedom fighters were our allies? I cant understand why people from the right, doesnt see this as an evidence that our leaders judge their ennemy from their own interest.


:scratch: Good point. I've always wondered that too about Rummy and Saddam too. I guess the answer (besides the self interest one) is the same reason why some lovers just grow apart over time.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: Harper,

aeon said:
I cant understand why people from the right, doesnt see this as an evidence that our leaders judge their ennemy from their own interest.

Who ever said they didn't?

They are our leaders and they judge our enemies from our best interest.

It's pretty simple really, at least is to me.
 

fuzzylogix

Council Member
Apr 7, 2006
1,204
7
38
Re: RE: Harper,

Jo Canadian said:
aeon said:
Can someone explain to me, why 18 years ago, northen alliance were our ennemy, alquada/taliban through mujahadeen/freedom fighters were our allies? I cant understand why people from the right, doesnt see this as an evidence that our leaders judge their ennemy from their own interest.


:scratch: Good point. I've always wondered that too about Rummy and Saddam too. I guess the answer (besides the self interest one) is the same reason why some lovers just grow apart over time.

Yeah, that's a good analogy, Jo. At one point, one of the lovers has the soft scented massage OIL and decides to use it on themselves instead of on their lover, and then the beautiful friendship ends up as a fight over the OIL.
 

fuzzylogix

Council Member
Apr 7, 2006
1,204
7
38
And Beaver, great post- sums up everything succinctly and accurately. Interesting comparison to Reagan.
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
1.

Harper's war: Nothing to do with peacekeeping

You're right, it's warfare.

2.

Can someone explain to me, why 18 years ago, northen alliance were our ennemy, alquada/taliban through mujahadeen/freedom fighters were our allies?

I cant understand why people from the right, doesnt see this as an evidence that our leaders judge their ennemy from their own interest.

The Northern Alliance was never our enemy, you're wrong as per. As for the Mujahideen, they were our allies because they were fighting the Soviets. FYI though aeon, as I once told you before on these forums, we're not fighting the Mujahideen, we're fighting Al-qaeda, a completely different sect. Write this down so I don't have to tell you again in a month or two.
 

JonB2004

Council Member
Mar 10, 2006
1,188
0
36
Re: RE: Harper,

Toro said:
I think its pretty safe to say that, so far, Stephen Harper is the greatest Prime Minister Canada has ever seen.


And I think that it is safe to say that you are biggest dumbass ever seen.
 

fuzzylogix

Council Member
Apr 7, 2006
1,204
7
38
Oh- Ok NOW I understand, Mogz.
Oopsie Doopsie.... Big Booboo
But Al Quaeda is in Pakistan.
You need to invade PAKISTAN

PAKISTAN
PAKISTAN
PAKISTAN

Surely Pakistan has something worth invading for!

Let's go get Their COTTON!!!!!!!!!!!


What's that?? The dictator leader is our friend because he has an atomic bomb and he buys lots of nice expensive weapons from us????


PLUCK PLUCK PLUCK

GET THE ARMY OVER THERE NOW AND GET OUR COTTON.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Our cowardly army is to busy kissing yankee ass and murdering civilians in Afghanistan to do the right thing and invade Pakistan. Protecting warlords and heroin is all they're good for.