Canadian prime ministers and Afstan
I think E.R. Campbell is on to something in this comment at Milnet.ca; none of the prime ministers (including Stephen Harper) involved with the Afghan mission has really been committed to it.
Update: Here's a perceptive appreciation of Canadian attitudes.
Update: Here's a perceptive appreciation of Canadian attitudes.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 3:31 p.m.
1 Comments:
".....reasons Canadians reject the mission are many and varied and include an unhealthy dose of adolescent, knee-jerk anti-Americanism"
We are allied in Afghanistan with a Nation that illegally and on fabricated evidence, bombed, embargoed, blockaded, attacked, invaded and occupied a country that had not attacked it or threatened to attack it. Most of the World believes the US is just after grabbing the Iraqi oil, which may very well be true.
In light of this, how can Canadians, such as myself, be asked to overlook that other US front, in Iraq, pretend it did not exist and assume that our great ally, regardless of his real pirate-like motivations in Iraq, really has altruist motivations in Afghanistan (democracy and sending young girls to school). I guess that is why, after spending as little time and resources as possible in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, the US put all its efforts on attacking Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with the "war on terror" and now wants to expand the war to Iran, another oil rich country (but that is just an irrelevant coincidence).
But we Canadians are expected to overlook all that, and are accused of suffering from an "unhealthy dose of adolescent, knee-jerk anti-Americanism" which is in no way justified.
Well its not knee-jerk, its not unhealthy, and its not adolescent. Its well thought out, its descent, and its honourable. In fact I could even be considered very pro-American, and even pro-Republican, but the kind of America a Ron Paul envisions, not the kind George Bush and his fellow pirates dreams of (looting other countries and his own people)
Post a Comment
<< Home