- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
or Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic ;D
PKR_Chequer said:Brilliant idea, on guard. IMNSHO, that would be the perfect response on the part of Gen. Hillier: invite Ms Parrish to visit the troops and see for herself. With her trip(s) to Palestine, she's already demonstrated that she is willing to tour conflict-torn areas, so a few days in Kandahar accompanied and protected by the CF's finest should be no sweat for her...
whiskey601 said:Guys, check your fire on the the religious angle a little bit. The problem isn't Islam, the problem is extremism based on misguided interpretations of Islam.
Lets not forget those that were killed in Bosnia & Croatia.ArmyRick said:and lets not forget . . .
Lets not forget those that were killed in Bosnia & Croatia.
30 July 2005
Carolyn Parrish, MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Dear Ms. Parrish;
Like many other Canadians I disagree with your recent remarks about both our mission in Afghanistan and our Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier.
First: I take no issue with your right to hold those views. I disagree with them, but that's my prerogative.
Second: and even more important, I respect your right and, as an elected MP, your duty to express yourself.
I do suggest that your views are poorly founded.
Some friends, including many serving military personnel, retired members (like myself) and people interested in the Canadian Forces participate in a web based discussion called army.ca* - http://army.ca/ . The site's owner has addressed some of my concerns (and those of many others) in an editorial. I would be grateful if you would read it because it reflects my views and those of several friends whose opinions I value.
In addition, I, specifically, believe that some of your views on Canada's military are ill-informed.
You suggested that we have 100 years of history as peacekeepers. With respect, Ms. Parrish, that is utter nonsense. We, Canadian sailors, soldiers and aviators have several hundred years of honourable, even glorious history as fighting men (and women) â “ some of it predating confederation.
We will soon be celebrating the 200th anniversary of battles like Lundy's Lane and the capture of Detroit. The first Canadian VC (our top medal, awarded only to the bravest of the brave in battle) was won by Lieutenant Robert Dunn, of Toronto, at Balaclava, at the Charge of the Light Brigade, over 160 years ago - one of the very first VCs ever won. Canadians served at the relief of Khartoum in 1884, and it was Canadians who defeated Cronje's Boers, at Paardeberg, in 1900. I'm sure you know about our record in 1914-18. Perhaps you think our part in the intervention in Russia in 1918/19 was our initial foray into peacekeeping â “ I think most historians would disagree. Of course you know that Canadians â “ some of your constituents amongst them, fought around the world in 1939-45, in Korea in the early '50s and, in too little known battles, in the Balkans in the '90s. I'm sure some of your constituents will have sons or daughters, nieces and nephews, friends, even spouses in Afghanistan, or will be there themselves â “ in combat, in 2005 and for years to come.
We were, in a manner of speaking, trying to restore peace in 1914, 1939 and 1950, (as our forces are doing, now) but those wars grew, inevitably, into colossal struggles in which tens of thousands of Canadians were killed while they, to their eternal credit, killed many, many more tens â “ even hundreds of thousands of the enemy. Killing, Ms. Parrish, is a soldier's stock-in-trade; as is dying. If you want our army to stop doing both then I really suggest you recommend that we disarm, totally, and use CIDA's civil servants or Katimavik's children for Pearsonian peacekeeping. Until then, General Hiller, as is his duty, spoke over the heads of the Ottawa spin doctors, directly to the soldiers he is sending â “ on our behalf â “ into harm's way.
I reiterate, I take no issue with your right to hold whichever views you choose; soldiers, especially those still serving, take very seriously their duty to protect your rights to hold and propagate your views â “ more so in your case because you, unlike any if us, stood for election and you were elected, by our fellow citizens, to speak for them. We respect politicians, including the ones who do not share our views. I do not share your views. I think they are poorly grounded in fact and history. I ask you to reconsider, revise and restate yourself.
Thank you, Ms. Parrish for considering my views.
Yours truly
original signed by
Edward Campbell
Ottawa
* If you peruse the rest of the site you will probably find that most members disagree with you â “ some quite vehemently. I'm sure you're used to that â “ the vehemence; I guess, sadly, it goes with your job. Soldiers, too, have the rights to hold views and, within certain well defined rules, to express them. They would rather not talk about you and your views; they are much more interested in questions like 'what is the best rifle?' and 'how should we best organize the rifle section?' but when they are already in (in some cases) or headed for Afghanistan (in others) they exercise their right to complain about leaders and leadership â “ especially political leaders, like you
Tara Brautigam
Canadian Press
Saturday, July 30, 2005
1 | 2 | NEXT >>
Independent MP Carolyn Parrish. (CP PICTURE ARCHIVE/Tom Hanson)
ADVERTISEMENT
TORONTO (CP) - The federal Liberals slammed the door shut Friday on any notion that Independent MP Carolyn Parrish would be welcomed back into the party that she helped keep in power.
An aide to Prime Minister Paul Martin stifled speculation that he was about to invite the maverick MP from Mississauga, Ont., back into caucus after she was banished for criticizing Martin and stomping on a doll of U.S. President George W. Bush.
"He's not even entertaining the thought of welcoming Carolyn Parrish back to the caucus," said Marc Roy.
Martin did meet with Parrish after she threw her support behind the government in the razor-thin May 19 confidence vote, helping to keep the Liberals at the helm, Roy said. But she has not been asked to return to caucus.
"Did the prime minister talk to her, go see her after the vote? Yes. But the fact remains that the prime minister is not entertaining the idea of welcoming back Carolyn Parrish."
In Timmins, Ont., Martin shot down questions surrounding Parrish's possible return to the Liberal party.
"The fact is, that's not an issue," said Martin, who was in the northern Ontario city discussing the region's economic development.
Parrish refused to be interviewed, but in a statement e-mailed to her assistant confirmed that she had discussions with Martin.
"The lines of communication were open. Chit chat was taking place. It's correct that there were no formal negotiations because there's nothing to negotiate," the statement read.
The categorical rejection of Parrish's re-entry into Liberal politics was a surprising, if not dangerous tactic, said University of Toronto political science professor Stephen Clarkson.
"I would've thought they would let her back into the fold quietly and have a talk with her, and figure out if there's any way that she can take a more reasonable stand in public, or less embarrassing stand on American issues," said Clarkson.
Clarkson, who is releasing a book this fall on the Liberal party's domination of Canadian politics, said the snub has the same tone of confrontation displayed by Martin's advisers during the 2004 election, when the Liberals maintained power but lost their majority government.
"They're not learning from that," he said.
"That kind of belligerent attitude is difficult to afford if you're not in complete control of the situation . . . when they're in a minority, it's a dangerous tactic."
Of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, the Liberals have 132 and the New Democrats have 19, giving the two parties 151 votes. The NDP has agreed to prop up the Liberals in exchange for a handful of concessions.
In opposition, the Conservatives have 98 seats and the Bloc Quebecois have 54, together marshalling 152 votes.
There are three Independents who effectively hold the balance of power: Parrish, who had said she'll continue to support the Liberals, Pat O'Brien who has sided with the Grits in the past, and David Kilgour, who supported the Tory-Bloc coalition during the confidence vote. The seat of Surrey North MP Chuck Cadman, who died earlier this month, is vacant. He stood in support of the Liberals during the confidence vote, keeping the party afloat.
Martin turfed Parrish last December after she criticized him and his team and stomped on a Bush doll as part of a TV skit satirizing her opposition to the U.S. president's ballistic missile defence scheme.
But Parrish garnered respect from her former colleagues when she voted for the government's budget on May 19, helping Martin cling to power by the narrowest of margins.
She showed up for the confidence vote despite suffering severe abdominal pain from what she described as a suspected ovarian cyst.
At the time, Parrish said "lots of colleagues" were urging her to rejoin Liberal ranks.
CFL said:Ed did you post that just to her or the papers as well?
Hunter911 said:Great job Edward... Im really glad someone said what had to be said
On another note, in an article on Rick Hillier in the Globe and Mail, Saturday July 30th, Ms. Parrish said "...we are not about to throw away a noble reputation in the world because of a testosterone filled General, and i think someone should put a clamp on his mouth."
:-\... Does this seem wrong and ignorant to anyone else?
Hunter911 said:Great job Edward... Im really glad someone said what had to be said
...
From: Carolyn Parrish, M.P. cparrish@rogers.blackberry.net
Sent: August 2, 2005 6:31:03 PM
To: "Edward Campbell" ____________@hotmail.com
Subject: Thank you
For a very thoughtful letter. The 100 years of peacekeeping was a shortened
quote. I'm totally aware that our first 50 years were spent fighting tyranny and
democracy - real armies that wanted to change our way of life or the lives of
our allies. The last 50 have been devoted to â Å“peace makingâ ? in hundreds of hot
spots in the world. Reporters truncate quotes to suit their purposes. I read the
editorial you directed to my attention and would really appreciate the
opportunity to respond to it in detail. Perhaps you could forward my response to
the magazine's publisher.
Again, I truly appreciate your thoughtful, respectful letter and will put effort
into responding to it, and to the editorial, as soon as is possible.
Carolyn
Haggis said:Replies from Ms. Parrish (if any) will be posted here.