Needs this..............FRegards
Posted on 08/27/2006 3:42:07 PM PDT by Heartofsong83
The Americanization of Canada by Harper Prime Minister walking in lockstep with Bush, says Haroon Siddiqui
Aug. 27, 2006. 01:00 AM HAROON SIDDIQUI
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. hsiddiq@thestar.ca.
im shocked. not
seems to me he loves to rage over anything that slows the muzzy march to take over the world.
I just FReeped this POS.
I would not say that they've been Americanized unless they let millions of illegal Mexican immigrants into their country.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Oh for crying outloud! As a way upstate NYer, I practically grew up with Canadians. They flocked into my hometown every summer causing me to take 5 years of French. I don't remember trying to convert anyone. ;)
this guy is a moslem wacko.
Tell Haroon to hang on. We'll be sending him a boatload of disillusioned leftists after the elections in November.
He definitely is the worst of the Red Star's writers although Linda McCaig is a close second. One thing about Siddiq though, my experience is that he does respond to the emails that he gets.... so email away.
A country whose defining motto is "We're not America" is not long to this world.
The Islamization of Canada by Haroon Siddiqui
Needs this..............FRegards
Canada should be so lucky that the U.S. would consider making it a part of the U.S. We already have Kalifornia, we don't need another feckless faculty.
The actual story of the name of the country is as follows:
The original name was CND, sorta like Cund
Someone from the great state of Texas asked the CNDian how that name was spelled. The reply...C ehhh, N ehhhh, D ehhhh
That's hilarious. He writes as if his loyalty is to Canada; in fact, its to Islam, and terrorism; not that there's a sheet of paper's daylight between the two these days.
Good grief, maybe Harper and Bush backed Israel instead of Haroon's Hezbollah pals because they each independently thought it was the right thing to do.
Somehow I doubt that Bush has a button on his Hollywood Evil Genius® desk labeled "compel obedience from Harper."
On the other hand, Haroon Siddiqi's mullah pulls his chain every Friday and he spends the next week apologising for, promoting or excusing terrorism. Case in point, above.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Are you sure America isn't being Canadianized? My last ford was made in canada. And I have the urge to aeh after many sentences aeh.
Buy that man a Miller. Harper, I mean. I mean, a Molson.
"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."
Does not Haroon espouse the virtues of the Islamic club while he sits comfortably in the wealth created by the white man's club? The guy's a racist.
My Hyundai was made in Alabama.
We're even. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.