• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The "Right" is wrong

The_Falcon

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
1
Points
410
Why oh why did the Toronto Sun bring Sid Ryan on board?  Really, I wanna know.  Read on.

Reproduced under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Ryan_Sid/2006/05/19/1587500.html

The ‘right’ is wrong
By SID RYAN

In 1957, Canada’s Lester B. Pearson received the Nobel Peace Prize for his groundbreaking vision of a United Nations peacekeeping force dedicated to resolving disputes and saving lives in the world’s trouble spots. In the ensuing decades, Canada has had a proud record of peacekeeping in places like Cyprus, Bosnia and Somalia.

With the election of Stephen Harper as prime minister, the future of this role is being called into question. The ideological right — including this newspaper’s editorial board — would have you believe that Canada is so stretched militarily that we can’t send 1,000 troops into the Darfur region of Sudan to prevent the genocide of its people.

The argument goes that Canada is committed to fighting the “war on terror” in Afghanistan and any distraction such as Darfur would only detract from this mission. The “right” in this country view the link between Afghanistan and George Bush’s war in Iraq as sacrosanct. The argument for the “right” is that they no longer want to see our troops deployed as mere peacekeepers in global conflicts. Instead they want a beefed up fighting machine where we spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars on military weapons and equipment.

They salivate when the chief of Canada’s defence staff, Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier, describes our mission in Afghanistan as “chasing down scumbags.” Comments like this are morsels of raw meat fed to the ideological right in Canada.

Harper has hitched his government’s foreign policy wagon to this new vision for our armed forces. He’s desperate for a successful Kandahar mission to justify spending billions on the armed forces instead of building a national child care program, for example. Meanwhile, as we dilly and dally over sending troops to back up a fragile peace agreement signed between the government of Sudan and its main rebel opponents, there are reports of civilians still being attacked and murdered in villages and refugee camps.

The conflict between two distinct groups in Darfur dates back to the 13th century. One group is mainly non-Arab agriculturalists whose ancestors come from the pre-colonial Fur kingdom. The second is Arab nomadic herdsmen from different tribes collectively referred to as Baggara. Both are Muslim and continually fight over access to land and water. Since gaining independence in 1956, Sudan has been ruled by a series of military dictatorships and suffered two major civil wars.

The latest conflict began in February 2003, when two rebel groups aligned with the non-Arab population accused the mainly Arab Sudanese government of oppressing non-Arabs. The rebels attacked government forces and installations. The government was caught by surprise and responded with an aerial bombardment of villages in Darfur. Compounding the problem was the government’s mistrust of its own Darfurian troops in the region. They recruited and armed the Janjaweed, a militia drawn from local Arab tribes. The Janjaweed has been accused of engaging in ethnic cleansing of whole villages on a scale compared to the genocide in Rwanda.

180,000 dead

Both sides have been accused of human rights violations, mass killings, rape and looting. Independent observers have accused the government backed Janjaweed militia of dismembering and killing non-combatants, even babies. More than 180,000 have died of starvation or have been killed in the conflict, with a further two million displaced.

Surely, Canada can afford to send troops to at least two troubled spots in the world. Why should the debate be limited to an either-or situation, Afghanistan versus Darfur?

Our PM should listen to Romeo Dallaire, the retired general who tried to stop the genocide in Rwanda. He criticized the government for setting up the debate as a trade-off, saying there is “something absolutely unethical and perverse that a leading middle power in the world is trading off or potentially trading off one mission for another mission.”

Meanwhile, Harper’s friend George W. Bush, who alleges the U.S. is too overstretched to chase down Bin Laden in Afghanistan, has 10,000 National Guard troops to send to the U.S./Mexico border to keep out migrant Mexican workers. No wonder so many Canadians are coming to believe the “right” is wrong.

I think this requires letters to editor.  I mean he couldn't even get the CDS' rank correct.
 
Hatchet Man said:
Harper has hitched his government’s foreign policy wagon to this new vision for our armed forces. He’s desperate for a successful Kandahar mission to justify spending billions on the armed forces instead of building a national child care program, for example. Meanwhile, as we dilly and dally over sending troops to back up a fragile peace agreement signed between the government of Sudan and its main rebel opponents, there are reports of civilians still being attacked and murdered in villages and refugee camps.

WOW, so some how he equates needing to spend money on the military, so they do just that. To how they arnt paying for parents to not look after their kids........

There are civillians being attacked and killed in Afghanistan. You hear very little about how schools get burned and bombed all the time. Yet that is not a cause worth fighting for, because it does not jive with the current polls.
 
They salivate when the chief of Canada’s defence staff, Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier, describes our mission in Afghanistan as “chasing down scumbags.” Comments like this are morsels of raw meat fed to the ideological right in Canada.


Scumbags....no....of course not. That would be un-Canadian....we don't want to offend the enemy by referring to them as scumbags. HHmmm...how about cowards, asshats, douchebags.  What should we refer to these pigs as? I wouldn't consider myself to be aligned with the far right, yet those morsels tasted pretty good to me!  The SUN never ceases to amaze me sometimes.
 
Octavianus said:
Scumbags....no....of course not. That would be un-Canadian....we don't want to offend the enemy by referring to them as scumbags. HHmmm...how about cowards, asshats, douchebags.  What should we refer to these pigs as? I wouldn't consider myself to be aligned with the far right, yet those morsels tasted pretty good to me!  The SUN never ceases to amaze me sometimes.

I'm sure Sid's right.  If we referred to them as "gentlemen" that would probably stop the beheadings, honour killings, etc.  Because we all know they choose to live and act based on the labels we put on them.


Matthew.  :blotto:
 
I still like the way Piper put it in another thread....

Who would have thought Sid Ryan so war-mongering blood thirsty that he wants us to INVADE another sovereign country?
Hey Sid, please explain to me [us] how sending our military uninvited to Sudan is any different than the US sending their military uninvited into Iraq?

You neo-con fascist you........ ^-^
 
I think it's going to take a whole generation to de-brainwash Canadians re this "peacekeeping" fantasy. No matter how many letters to the editor are written, or articles by Lew Mckenzie are published, these people like Ryan, Staples, etc keep coming out with the same tired tune.
 
I wonder if Mr Ryan can explain what success UN peacekeepers had in solving the problems in Cyprus, Bosnia and Somalia?  Would Srebrenica somehow be part of the answer?

On Darfur, an interesting article, "'Creative death' in Darfur
The cure may be as deadly as the crisis":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/05/14/ING3RIQCIL1.DTL

Excerpt:
'...
...humanitarians are painting a picture of an almost pain-free way of securing Darfur and building a wall around the Sudanese government so that it ceases doing harm. This is an irresponsible fantasy because the Bashir government has not and will not abide by any international standards or agreements. Only force -- and overwhelming force -- will stop Sudan's war criminals. And by applying such force, humanitarians and their military wing will shatter the Sudanese state and create a whirlwind that will require the energies of large numbers of people to contain...'

People like Mr Ryan suffer from a surfeit of ideology and deficit of knowledge.

Mark
Ottawa
 
>The ideological right — including this newspaper’s editorial board — would have you believe that Canada is so stretched militarily that we can’t send 1,000 troops into the Darfur region of Sudan to prevent the genocide of its people.

I'm not sure who the "ideological right" are who hold that belief, but this Ryan fellow seems unable to understand the weakness of overgeneralizing.  Sure we could send 1,000 troops there.  The devil of course lies in the details.  "Make it so", I suppose, as if the costs to Canadian service families and our future defence capabilities were irrelevant.  I have a complementary proposal: let us resolve our perceived health care and education crises by simply demanding that health care and education professionals work longer hours, with larger patient loads and classroom sizes.  Anyone care to wager that the squeal won't be audible on the moon?  Equal work strain for all public employees, says I.  Leaving my pointless mini-rant aside, the fact is we have requirements (or desires) which exceed resources and need to choose; we can't have it all.

>The argument goes that Canada is committed to fighting the “war on terror” in Afghanistan and any distraction such as Darfur would only detract from this mission. The “right” in this country view the link between Afghanistan and George Bush’s war in Iraq as sacrosanct. The argument for the “right” is that they no longer want to see our troops deployed as mere peacekeepers in global conflicts. Instead they want a beefed up fighting machine where we spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars on military weapons and equipment.

What a mighty effigy he has constructed to burn.  That's Sid's conception of what some hypothetical monolithic "ideological right" believes.  The irony is that there is at least as much circumstantial evidence to found a belief that our involvement in Afghanistan was initiated in part to ensure we couldn't be expected to commit forces anywhere else, such as, say, Iraq.  Well, so much for conspiracies.   Did we send troops to die in Afghanistan merely as a dodge to stay out of Iraq, and now that Sid has a real purpose we should just haul ass out of there?  Thanks for the sacrifices, boys and girls, but Canadians want to live vicariously through our soldiers again.  As Mussolini might have said, we need to risk a few dead so that we can sit at international conferences as a nation with a proud record of peacekeeping.

>They salivate when the chief of Canada’s defence staff, Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier, describes our mission in Afghanistan as “chasing down scumbags.” Comments like this are morsels of raw meat fed to the ideological right in Canada.

There's the effigy again.

>He’s desperate for a successful Kandahar mission to justify spending billions on the armed forces instead of building a national child care program, for example.

WTF?  Where did that come from?  Everyone knows that the true false dilemma is "Child care OR Health care".

>Meanwhile, as we dilly and dally over sending troops to back up a fragile peace agreement signed between the government of Sudan and its main rebel opponents

With whose permission?  I suppose that the contingency plans are already being drawn up or have been drawn up, not only by the CF but also by various other potential participants including NATO as a whole.  The dilly and dally is at the UN, which is shit-scared to utter the "G" word lest it find itself bound to do something.  The "ideological right" seemed - if I may overgeneralize now - prepared to intervene a few years back: damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.  Nothing happened because we haven't concluded the diplomatic masturbation at the UN, and perhaps the "ideological right" has lost interest.

>Surely, Canada can afford to send troops to at least two troubled spots in the world. Why should the debate be limited to an either-or situation, Afghanistan versus Darfur?

We can afford to send dribs and drabs of troops to many troubled spots.  The question is whether they will have any effect.  Also, AIUI the choice right now boils down to "pick two out of three": Afghanistan, Darfur, reconstitution.

>Meanwhile, Harper’s friend George W. Bush, who alleges the U.S. is too overstretched to chase down Bin Laden in Afghanistan, has 10,000 National Guard troops to send to the U.S./Mexico border to keep out migrant Mexican workers. No wonder so many Canadians are coming to believe the “right” is wrong.

Perhaps they're not being sent for year-long deployments.  Probably George also doesn't want his entire armed forces committed to battle.  Those sorts of niggling details make a difference, if the person reviewing the details is educated and intelligent.
 
Mark

Mister Ryan and his comrades enjoy the luxury of engaging in righteous indignation, or perhaps unctuous hypocrisy, without every having to worry about bearing the responsibility for actions gone wrong. I wish just once we could get something realistic out of the mouths of these babes.
 
Old Sweat said:
Mark

Mister Ryan and his comrades enjoy the luxury of engaging in righteous indignation, or perhaps unctuous hypocrisy, without every having to worry about bearing the responsibility for actions gone wrong. I wish just once we could get something realistic out of the mouths of these babes.

I hope not, as long as Sid keeps spouting off this nonsense, it is my hope the voters in Oshawa keep denying him the chance to move into provinvial/federal politics.
 
Back
Top