Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
The Americanization of Canada by Harper
| Message Board > Controversy and Quarantine > The Americanization of Canada by Harper |
| Lordpatch User Info... | The Americanization of Canada by Harper Prime Minister walking in lockstep with Bush, says Haroon Siddiqui Aug. 27, 2006. HAROON SIDDIQUI- Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1156592170979&call_page=TS_EditorialOpinion&call_pageid=968256290204&call_pagepath=Editorial/Opinion&pubid=968163964505 In 2003, much of our media and the Bay St. establishment, along with some conservative politicians, such as Ernie Eves, favoured George W. Bush's plans to invade Iraq. Most Canadians didn't. Jean Chrétien sided with the people. This year, much of our media and part of the corporate establishment, along with most Conservatives and even some Liberals, favour the American combat tactics in Afghanistan. They also back Bush's full support of the Israeli war on Lebanon. Canadians don't. Stephen Harper has ignored the people. You may like or dislike his act as the chief cheerleader for Israel and the United States. You may even feel cheated that he had kept his ideology well concealed prior to and during the last election. But at least you know where he stands now. What you do not know, except in a vague way, is where the main Liberal leadership aspirants stand. They stand in different spots, on different days. Harper's assertion that the Israeli actions in Lebanon were a measured response to the provocations of Hezbollah was only the start of his reading from the American script. Bush stalled a ceasefire. So did Harper. Bush said no to American troops in a multinational force. Harper said no to Canadian participation. Bush cast the Israeli offensive as a "struggle between the forces of freedom and the force of terror." So did Harper. Bush tied Lebanon to the larger (failed) war on terrorism. So did Harper. At times, Harper sounded more hawkish than the Republican neocon hawks. Bush called the massacre at Qana "awful," but Harper stayed mum, and his office made a point of saying that he would stay mum on the tragedy. His MPs were coached to say they were "deeply saddened by the deaths and injury of innocent people caused by extremist organizations in Lebanon, Israel and the world." Israel was not responsible for Israeli bombs killing and maiming civilians. By the third week of the war, Harper tried to mitigate his "measured" response position. But he only augmented it: "Frankly, we were talking about three weeks ago when Hezbollah took Israeli soldiers hostage ... But now we have a completely different situation ... We have a full-blown conflict, almost a war, and it's hard to say whether a response is proportional." (My emphasis). At times, the Prime Minister has not even sounded like Canada's leader, as in refusing to protest the bombing deaths of a Montreal family of eight and that of an unarmed Canadian peacekeeper. At one time, he tried to rationalize his stance this way: "There's a lot of long-term strategic interests of this country and of the world at stake here." Protecting our trade with the U.S., of course. That, for him, might mean supporting Bush, even when he disagrees. Or, more likely, it might mean he fully shares the president's geopolitical outlook and wants to align Canada with the U.S. Inflammatory statements by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and by Jason Kenney, the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, suggest so. Then there's Harper's affinity for John Howard, Australia's right-wing prime minister. And there's Harper's speech in London in July touting the virtues and values of the English-speaking world, a.k.a. the white man's club. Combine all that and you get a good idea why Harper has been so sure-footed in making Canada complicit in the death and destruction in Lebanon. The issue here is not whether we should fight terrorism but rather how. It is not whether the world should stand by Israel but rather how. In Lebanon, the argument has not been whether Israel had a right to retaliate against Hezbollah, but how. As British Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells put it: "If they are chasing Hezbollah, then go for Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation." Or, as Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard, said: An eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. When the strong pummel the weak at will and relentlessly, they dilute their moral currency and guarantee further wars. A recent editorial in The New York Times said: "Washington helps Israel best when it supplements, and where necessary restrains, Israeli actions, not when it acts as a mindless echo chamber. America abdicated leadership in this crisis." So did Harper, by blindly following Bush on a failed mission that even a majority of Israelis are questioning furiously. Haroon Siddiqui, appears Thursday and Sunday. [email protected]. - Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:02am | ||
| Lordpatch User Info... | CAF urges its community to show its support to our elected Members of Parliament By nour12 Created Aug 27 2006 - 10:30am Note that Wrzesnewskyj is on record, according to CP, denying he asked for the removal of Hezbollah from the Terrorist organizations list. See http://www.ymlp.com/pubarchive_show_message.php?montrealmuslimnews+9475 ****************** ACTION ALERT - Canadian Arab Federation FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 23, 2006 CAF urges its community to show its support to our elected Members of Parliament The 3 MP’s trip to the Middle East is going well so far, and they were quoted in many main stream Canadian newspapers asking to remove Hezbollah from the Terrorist organizations list. The problem is they are getting a lot of harsh words and not a lot of support; we need to mobilize the community, especially in these ridings, to write the MP’s and call with encouraging words and support. Listed below are the names of the MP’s, their contact information, and their ridings. Peggy Nash Caucus: NDP Riding: Parkdale—High Park Telephone: 416-769-5072 E-mail: [email protected] Province: Ontario Borys Wrzesnewskyj Caucus: Liberal Riding: Etobicoke Centre, Telephone: 416-249-7322 E-mail: [email protected] Province: Ontario Maria Mourani Caucus: Bloc Québécois Riding: Ahuntsic Telephone: 514-383-3709 E-mail: [email protected] Province: Québec ************ http://www.caf.ca Established in 1967, the Canadian Arab Federation is a national, non-partisan, non profit and membership-based organization. CAF represents Canadian Arabs on issues relating to public policy. Source URL: http://vancouver.indymedia.org/?q=node/2271 - Sun, 27 Aug 2006 2:13pm | ||
| Lordpatch User Info... | AFGHANISTAN U.S., Canadian casualities mount By G. Dunkel Published Aug 26, 2006 9:14 AM The first victory Bush and his team proclaimed in their “war against terror” was overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 shortly after 9/11. Following the script of the Rumsfeld doctrine, this victory was supposed to be short, sharp and effective. Now, five years later, the Bushites’ rosy proclamations are fading. The Montreal Gazette of Aug. 18 reports that hush-hush behind-the-scenes talks are taking place between NATO and some factions of the Taliban in the province of Kandahar, a very large city in south Afghanistan close to the Pakistani border. This was confirmed by Canadian Forces Major Scott Lundy. Twenty-six Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since Canadian forces deployed to Afghanistan in 2002, with 19 dying in the past six months. While this is far less than U.S. losses in Iraq, Canada is a far smaller country and each loss has been extensively reported, with pictures of the bodies returning home and the funeral rites both on television and in the written press. A recent Canadian press poll has 49 percent of English-speaking and 62 percent of French-speaking Canadians opposed to the Canadian presence in Afghanistan. A similar reaction has taken place in Great Britain, following losses in the British forces in Afghanistan. The Independent, a liberal British newspaper generally opposed to Prime Minister Blair’s interventions, ran a long report Aug. 21 on how the Taliban have penetrated Kandahar. Local residents feel that if the U.S. left Kandahar, it would fall to the Taliban in a week. While NATO and UN forces don’t appear poised to leave any time soon, the Taliban felt strong enough to try to take over a regional center close to the city. They lost the battle, but the fact that they felt strong enough to try is an indication of their growing strength and the weakness of the U.S./NATO position. The fighting has grown so intense that even the U.S. press has started covering it in the past few days. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, with most of its people living under feudal-like conditions. Barely half of the population is literate and education for girls and young women is still taboo in many parts of the country. Despite major social problems, however, five years of military firepower by the U.S. and its allies have not been able to overcome this popular resistance, led by Islamic fundamentalists, and set up a stable puppet government. Email: [email protected] This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License. Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011 Email: [email protected] Subscribe [email protected] Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php site promotion Page printed from: http://www.workers.org/2006/world/afghanistan-0831/ - Mon, 28 Aug 2006 4:08am | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
