Has Harper forgotten what Canadian is?

[JLP]

Now George W Harper has started deporting war resisters, defying a Canadian tradition and ignoring a parliamentary motion and the will of a clear majority of Canadians.

[JoeLassister]

- blowing up 40 years of a peaceful country reputation

- bringing back the homosexuality question

- trying to criminalize abortion

- Restricting the freedom of expression by cutting massively in the democratization of the culture

- Laughing of the relevance of the works of the parliament by not sending any conservative member

- Make all this as minority government

Is this to forget what canadian is ?

[Dutch_Habs_Fan]

Damn i thought PTG was back....

Good to see your taking over his job JLP!

[JLP]

Damn i thought PTG was back....

Good to see your taking over his job JLP!

Yeah just call me JLPTG

Anyway as a folowup, the first resister that Canada deported, Robin Long just got 15 months and a dishonorable discharge (felony).

[Zowpeb]

Sorry, I have no sympathy for "war resisters"...especially when they were volunteer members of the US Forces.

1) In an elected government you may not always agree with the direction of the government.

2) He volunteered to join the Forces with full knowledge that it may mean going to a war...

These are pretty basic concepts that are obvious to most who would join. Perhaps, if all he wanted was a meal ticket and some free education then he shouldn't have joined the Forces. He has let down everyone he has served with who have gone to war and that, more then anything, is shameful. Frankly, I find it disgusting that people even defend this type of person. If the US had a draft and he was resisting I could find some sense in defending this person...he's just a man with no honour.

As for the comments about Harper and democracy...I find them greatly amusing. If this was a left wing minority government all the lefty media types, and likely yourself, would be saying that they're showing leadership and getting things done despite it being a minority.

Look at the results...Harper is accomplishing his agenda in a minority government with all parties allegedly aligned against him...minority or not. I think you almost have to give him kudos for actually getting things done in a minority government. Typically a minority gov't only sees the status quo left alone. If the Liberals, NDP and Bloq don't like it then they can call the election...fact is, they haven't.

You say that he's forgotten what being Canadian is...I ask you: what do you think it means to be Canadian? I also ask you, as this is a democratic, free country, why should everyone's views of being "Canadian" be the same as yours?

Edited August 24, 2008 by Zowpeb

[Fanpuck33]

Sorry, I have no sympathy for "war resisters"...especially when they were volunteer members of the US Forces.

1) In an elected government you may not always agree with the direction of the government.

2) He volunteered to join the Forces with full knowledge that it may mean going to a war...

These are pretty basic concepts that are obvious to most who would join. Perhaps, if all he wanted was a meal ticket and some free education then he shouldn't have joined the Forces. He has let down everyone he has served with who have gone to war and that, more then anything, is shameful. Frankly, I find it disgusting that people even defend this type of person. If the US had a draft and he was resisting I could find some sense in defending this person...he's just a man with no honour.

[JLP]

Hi Zow, howser?

Have to say I'm too far and long removed to comment on what Harper has done vis a vis the economy and so on. Maybe most Canadians' standard of living has improved under his government? Hope so. I can only comment on policy shifts, which can sometimes be viewed better from afar.

So to your question ~ "What does it mean to be a Canadian?"

For me it starts in the aftermath of WWII, when our country, which had lost so many young men, began to develop a vision of peace. Mackenzie King and Louis St-Laurent advocated for UN Peacekeeping, and Lester B. Pearson later won the Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering it to defuse the Suez Crisis. I think that is Canada's most important achievement of the modern era, and I am proud that Pierre Trudeau declared my country a "refuge from militarism," and that Canada accepted some 100,000 war resisters from the USA and other countries during the Vietnam and cold war era. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices of the many Canadian peacekeepers who lost their lives, but gave birth to a tradition that became fundamental to the Canadian identity both at home and around the world.

By deporting war resisters such as Robin Long and Jeremy Hinzman, Harper is dishonouring this tradition.

The 200 or so war resisters who have come to Canada in the last years made the difficult but I believe courageous choice to refuse to fight in an immoral and illegal war. They believed that by participating they would be commiting a war crime. (Individual choice is an obligation under Nuremberg Principle IV: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.")

I don't think it's poetic to say that these soldiers saw Canada as a beacon of reason in a sea of madness. And true to tradition, Canada provided a haven. Further, on June 3, 2008, the Canadian Parliament passed a resolution "to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations . . . to remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals"

The resolution was passed 137-110, with only the Conservatives voting against it. But now, Harper has began deportations in defiance of parliament, tradition, and the will of the Canadian people. That's why I regard this man as un-Canadian.

[Zowpeb]

Hi Zow, howser?

Have to say I'm too far and long removed to comment on what Harper has done vis a vis the economy and so on. Maybe most Canadians' standard of living has improved under his government? Hope so. I can only comment on policy shifts, which can sometimes be viewed better from afar.

So to your question ~ "What does it mean to be a Canadian?"

For me it starts in the aftermath of WWII, when our country, which had lost so many young men, began to develop a vision of peace. Mackenzie King and Louis St-Laurent advocated for UN Peacekeeping, and Lester B. Pearson later won the Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering it to defuse the Suez Crisis. I think that is Canada's most important achievement of the modern era, and I am proud that Pierre Trudeau declared my country a "refuge from militarism," and that Canada accepted some 100,000 war resisters from the USA and other countries during the Vietnam and cold war era. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices of the many Canadian peacekeepers who lost their lives, but gave birth to a tradition that became fundamental to the Canadian identity both at home and around the world.

By deporting war resisters such as Robin Long and Jeremy Hinzman, Harper is dishonouring this tradition.

The 200 or so war resisters who have come to Canada in the last years made the difficult but I believe courageous choice to refuse to fight in an immoral and illegal war. They believed that by participating they would be commiting a war crime. (Individual choice is an obligation under Nuremberg Principle IV: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.")

I don't think it's poetic to say that these soldiers saw Canada as a beacon of reason in a sea of madness. And true to tradition, Canada provided a haven. Further, on June 3, 2008, the Canadian Parliament passed a resolution "to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations . . . to remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals"

The resolution was passed 137-110, with only the Conservatives voting against it. But now, Harper has began deportations in defiance of parliament, tradition, and the will of the Canadian people. That's why I regard this man as un-Canadian.

The Vietnam war resisters were draft dodgers...and while I don't hold a lot of respect for them I can at least understand why Canada allowed them to stay. They're country removed their choice in the matter and that's goes against the entire belief structure of the both Canada and the US. Having said that, it is an unfair comparison to view a resister to a draft to a volunteer member of the US Forces. Mr Long and Mr. Hinzman knew full well that they could go to war and also knew that they may not like the reasons behind it...after all, every war has it's detractors. I don't personally agree with the Iraq war, I don't like George Bush, but that doesn't mean these guys should be allowed to shirk their duty. This guys deserve to go home, stand trial, go to jail for a little while and be dishonourably discharged. Why should Canada be the judge and jury for US citizens? We aren't talking about a country that is going to hang this guy...too many Canadians take their hate of the US too far. Most of them don't even know why, just that it's en vogue.

As for the parliamentary vote...if it mattered, they'd still be in Canada. That was an opposition ploy they used politically so that people like yourself can say exactly what your saying. These guys were deported by beauracrats...and the opposition knows this. Why didn't they vote to specifically legislate them staying? Because that would have sparked a firestorm too. They took an easy path. Remember that was passed on June 3rd. These guys fled to Canada long before then...was that legislation retroactive? Ask the beauracracy that IS Canada...

Pierre Trudeau's Canada is NOT my Canada. I abhor the large socialist net that he has left this country with...it is ruining this fine nation, put us in debt and created a giant sense of entitlement for a generation, large regions of geography and more. His was a failed experiment. I will agree with you on our history as peace keepers and take pride in that...but I fail to see the relevance to defending a "war resister" who voluntarily joined a military service only to "run away".

[Prime Minister Koivu]

The Vietnam war resisters were draft dodgers...and while I don't hold a lot of respect for them I can at least understand why Canada allowed them to stay. They're country removed their choice in the matter and that's goes against the entire belief structure of the both Canada and the US. Having said that, it is an unfair comparison to view a resister to a draft to a volunteer member of the US Forces. Mr Long and Mr. Hinzman knew full well that they could go to war and also knew that they may not like the reasons behind it...after all, every war has it's detractors. I don't personally agree with the Iraq war, I don't like George Bush, but that doesn't mean these guys should be allowed to shirk their duty. This guys deserve to go home, stand trial, go to jail for a little while and be dishonourably discharged. Why should Canada be the judge and jury for US citizens? We aren't talking about a country that is going to hang this guy...too many Canadians take their hate of the US too far. Most of them don't even know why, just that it's en vogue.

As for the parliamentary vote...if it mattered, they'd still be in Canada. That was an opposition ploy they used politically so that people like yourself can say exactly what your saying. These guys were deported by beauracrats...and the opposition knows this. Why didn't they vote to specifically legislate them staying? Because that would have sparked a firestorm too. They took an easy path. Remember that was passed on June 3rd. These guys fled to Canada long before then...was that legislation retroactive? Ask the beauracracy that IS Canada...

Pierre Trudeau's Canada is NOT my Canada. I abhor the large socialist net that he has left this country with...it is ruining this fine nation, put us in debt and created a giant sense of entitlement for a generation, large regions of geography and more. His was a failed experiment. I will agree with you on our history as peace keepers and take pride in that...but I fail to see the relevance to defending a "war resister" who voluntarily joined a military service only to "run away".

Zowpeb for Prime Minister!

I absolutely agree with every word you have said in this thread.

[CerebusClone]

Sorry, I have no sympathy for "war resisters"...especially when they were volunteer members of the US Forces.

1) In an elected government you may not always agree with the direction of the government.

2) He volunteered to join the Forces with full knowledge that it may mean going to a war...

These are pretty basic concepts that are obvious to most who would join. Perhaps, if all he wanted was a meal ticket and some free education then he shouldn't have joined the Forces. He has let down everyone he has served with who have gone to war and that, more then anything, is shameful. Frankly, I find it disgusting that people even defend this type of person. If the US had a draft and he was resisting I could find some sense in defending this person...he's just a man with no honour.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with the general idea that a soldier who agrees to join the Forces, and benefits from the education, monetary compensation, ... should in turn respect the terms to which he agreed, which could include deplyment in case of war.

However, the US Army isn't actually the most honest organization when it comes to recruiting. This will probably have to be proven in court, but Robin Long pretends that his recruiter promised that he would never be deployed to Iraq, and he was part of a so-called a non-deployable unit; despite all this, he still received orders to fight in Iraq.

Long agreed to some terms, and these did not include being deplyed in Iraq.

This is similar to th US stop-loss policy, where soldiers who have completed the enlistment period they agreed to are forced to remain at war (with hardly any notice or compensation) while the Army extends their active-duty against without their consent, and often against their will. If the US Army can bend the rules whenever they feel like it, it should expect that soldiers will do the same from time to time.

[Zowpeb]

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with the general idea that a soldier who agrees to join the Forces, and benefits from the education, monetary compensation, ... should in turn respect the terms to which he agreed, which could include deplyment in case of war.

However, the US Army isn't actually the most honest organization when it comes to recruiting. This will probably have to be proven in court, but Robin Long pretends that his recruiter promised that he would never be deployed to Iraq, and he was part of a so-called a non-deployable unit; despite all this, he still received orders to fight in Iraq.

Long agreed to some terms, and these did not include being deplyed in Iraq.

This is similar to th US stop-loss policy, where soldiers who have completed the enlistment period they agreed to are forced to remain at war (with hardly any notice or compensation) while the Army extends their active-duty against without their consent, and often against their will. If the US Army can bend the rules whenever they feel like it, it should expect that soldiers will do the same from time to time.

I have heard similar recruitment issues...and can't really speak to the validity one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised either way. However, Mr. Long had a choice to become a resister in his own country and fight it legally there. He chose instead to flee the country...I don't see how this issue is one that Canada needs to become involved in.

The changes to the US stop-loss policy is a gross mistreatment of military personell...just as the war in Iraq is/was something the US should never have done from the beginning. Neither mitigates the issue that US military personell who make a conscientious decision to resist the war effort should fight that battle within their own legal system. If Mr. Long wants to make a case that his legal contractual obligations were based on not being deployed in Iraq then he can take his case to court within the US legal system. In fleeing the country he hurt his own case.

[JLP]

Hey guys, I appreciate the discussion, helps me get in touch with the mood back in my native Canada. Yes there are plenty of duty and moral issues involved here and we could talk about those forever -- draft vs enlistment, stop-loss policy, (il)legality of the war, the Nuremberg Principle IV etc.

But I'm more concerned with Canada -- on the one hand how the public, parliament and the courts see war resisters; and on the other hand how the Harper government's policy toward them is changing.

Zowpeg, you said "I don't personally agree with the Iraq war, I don't like George Bush, but that doesn't mean these guys should be allowed to shirk their duty." and "Mr. Long had a choice to become a resister in his own country and fight it legally there."

Again, is not only a simple definition of "duty" here -- it is being argued that to comply with Nuremberg Principle IV, these men and women have a duty not to fight in Iraq. In any case, US war resisters do not owe military duty to Canada. And Canadian tradition, as espoused by Trudeau, was to make our country "a refuge from militarism."

On your criticisms of Trudeau ("I abhor the large socialist net that he has left this country"), we should make a distinction between his domestic and foreign policies for the sake of this discussion. Trudeau followed in the tradition of Pearson by charting an independent and innovative foreign policy based on respect, dialogue and peace -- and this earned Canada respect from the international community. I fear that now, Canada is losing much of that respect. I don't think appeasing Bush and his militarism is worth the destruction of proud Canadian traditions, but it seems to me Harper is doing just that.

[Zowpeb]

Hey guys, I appreciate the discussion, helps me get in touch with the mood back in my native Canada. Yes there are plenty of duty and moral issues involved here and we could talk about those forever -- draft vs enlistment, stop-loss policy, (il)legality of the war, the Nuremberg Principle IV etc.

But I'm more concerned with Canada -- on the one hand how the public, parliament and the courts see war resisters; and on the other hand how the Harper government's policy toward them is changing.

Zowpeg, you said "I don't personally agree with the Iraq war, I don't like George Bush, but that doesn't mean these guys should be allowed to shirk their duty." and "Mr. Long had a choice to become a resister in his own country and fight it legally there."

Again, is not only a simple definition of "duty" here -- it is being argued that to comply with Nuremberg Principle IV, these men and women have a duty not to fight in Iraq. In any case, US war resisters do not owe military duty to Canada. And Canadian tradition, as espoused by Trudeau, was to make our country "a refuge from militarism."

On your criticisms of Trudeau ("I abhor the large socialist net that he has left this country"), we should make a distinction between his domestic and foreign policies for the sake of this discussion. Trudeau followed in the tradition of Pearson by charting an independent and innovative foreign policy based on respect, dialogue and peace -- and this earned Canada respect from the international community. I fear that now, Canada is losing much of that respect. I don't think appeasing Bush and his militarism is worth the destruction of proud Canadian traditions, but it seems to me Harper is doing just that.

The Nuremberg Principle IV is not meant to allow soldiers the ability to personally judge the actions of his country but is meant to guide their individual actions in the field. As per the response from the Justice of the Peace in the Hinzman case, it is not up to an individual soldier to decide if a war is legal or not. In point of fact, the UN has NOT ruled that the US/Iraq war is illegal. Therefore the legality of the war is simply the OPINION of the deserters in question.

Again, this is essentially an issue of breach of contract by the soldier and it's up to him, in his own country, to fight that battle. Further, the consequences for deserting are clearly spelled out under military law. Canadian tradition is not to be a "refuge from militarism" in any form whatever Trudeau espoused (or spouted ). Canada has provided refuge to soldiers who deserted after a draft (a major point of difference between Iraq and Vietnam that you continue to ignore). We have also provided refuge to those people who would be subject to various in-humane forms of punishment if they were deported. I think it's safe to say that Mr. Long had neither issue to contend with. In fact, his unwillingness to deal with this in his own country, through proper legal processes was shown in the act of fleeing.

This issue is precisely the definition of duty. He had a duty to himself, his friends/family, his unit and his country. He failed in every facet. If he was so concerned over the legality of the war he would have taken a stand in the US and fought it. He was too much of a coward to even do that...

[JLP]

In point of fact, the UN has NOT ruled that the US/Iraq war is illegal. Therefore the legality of the war is simply the OPINION of the deserters in question.

I defer to the opinion of Kofi Annan, who said the Iraq war is illegal.

Canadian tradition is not to be a "refuge from militarism" in any form whatever Trudeau espoused (or spouted ).

Like him or not, Trudeau was our PM when he said that. Harper is the PM now and he's dancing to the tune the US is calling. This is what I disagree with. Where is his mandate, with a minority government?

Canada has provided refuge to soldiers who deserted after a draft (a major point of difference between Iraq and Vietnam that you continue to ignore).

That's a good point for sure. I suggest you listen to what the resisters are saying, every contract has limits. The resisters are saying this war is not what they signed up for, it's a legal call I suppose. But the US Military (see stop-loss) has also violated the contract.

This issue is precisely the definition of duty. He had a duty to himself, his friends/family, his unit and his country. He failed in every facet. If he was so concerned over the legality of the war he would have taken a stand in the US and fought it. He was too much of a coward to even do that...

Hinzman served in Afghanistan. Many of the other war resisters also served, many in Iraq, but saw the reality on the ground -- which we don't see -- and concluded continuing would make them war criminals.

I appreciate what you're saying, war resisters should stay in the USA and fight there. But many took Canada's position against the Iraqi war and our tradition of welcoming resisters as an offer of sanctuary. Nobody told them Harper would change the policy.

[JoeLassister]

I appreciate what you're saying, war resisters should stay in the USA and fight there. But many took Canada's position against the Iraqi war and our tradition of welcoming resisters as an offer of sanctuary. Nobody told them Harper would change the policy.

Even more, nobody told Harper to change the policy. I'm freakin' affraid of what the PC could do with a majority government.

[JLP]

Even more, nobody told Harper to change the policy. . .

Maybe no Canadians told Harper to change the policy. But I don't think we can totally rule out the possibility that the US asked Harper to change the policy.

[CerebusClone]

Not to defend Harper, but the context has changed a lot since Trudeau made that statement; back then, enrollment was not voluntary and some people were forced to go to battle against their will. Basically, Trudeau made a policy which he felt was necessary at the time, and today Harper changed that policy hopefully because he feels it is necessary (whether we agree with him or not).

Besides, if our other federal parties felt that Harper is way out of line with this decision, they would have taken the Conservatives down with a no-confidence vote. Since they haven't, I take it everyone is ok with that decision, at least enough to forget about it for now.

Edited August 28, 2008 by CerebusClone

[JLP]

... if our other federal parties felt that Harper is way out of line with this decision, they would have taken the Conservatives down with a no-confidence vote. Since they haven't, I take it everyone is ok with that decision, at least enough to forget about it for now.

Not exactly. The opposition parties all voted on a resolution supporting war resisters right to stay in Canada. But Harper ignored it. Whether to bring down the government was another question.

[RobRock]

"Canadian lawmakers passed a non-binding resolution aimed at pressuring the government to freeze deportations of U.S. soldiers who fled to Canada after refusing to fight in the war in Iraq."

Non-binding is the key word in the sentence.

[Zowpeb]

I defer to the opinion of Kofi Annan, who said the Iraq war is illegal.

Like him or not, Trudeau was our PM when he said that. Harper is the PM now and he's dancing to the tune the US is calling. This is what I disagree with. Where is his mandate, with a minority government?

That's a good point for sure. I suggest you listen to what the resisters are saying, every contract has limits. The resisters are saying this war is not what they signed up for, it's a legal call I suppose. But the US Military (see stop-loss) has also violated the contract.

Hinzman served in Afghanistan. Many of the other war resisters also served, many in Iraq, but saw the reality on the ground -- which we don't see -- and concluded continuing would make them war criminals.

I appreciate what you're saying, war resisters should stay in the USA and fight there. But many took Canada's position against the Iraqi war and our tradition of welcoming resisters as an offer of sanctuary. Nobody told them Harper would change the policy.

Kofi Annan's opinion is only that...an opinion. The UN has never voted to declare the Iraq war illegal and many countries within the UN do not believe it to be illegal...just as many believe that it is. However, it will NEVER be tabled for a vote. The FACT is that this has not been declared an illegal war by the UN. I'm just debating your UN standard of using the Nuremberg Principle it is easy to follow that it is just someone picking and choosing which parts of UN doctrine they want to believe. He's crying to use the Nuremberg Principles but refuses to acknowledge that the UN has never declared the war illegal in the first place...thus negating his argument.

The beauty about an elected democratic government is that future governements are not beholden to past errors. Just because Trudeau "made a comment" when he was PM does not mean it should go down in history as a Canadian tradition...further, that was only ~35 years ago...creation of a "national tradition" takes more then a few decades IMO.

Since when is it the PM's responsibility to notify "refugees" (I just gagged calling war resisters that), in advance, what the future policy moves are with regard to foreign policy decisions? That's fairly ridiculous to even consider.

[JLP]

Kofi Annan's opinion is only that...an opinion.

. . .

Just because Trudeau "made a comment" when he was PM does not mean it should go down in history as a Canadian tradition...further, that was only ~35 years ago...creation of a "national tradition" takes more then a few decades IMO.

Since when is it the PM's responsibility to notify "refugees" (I just gagged calling war resisters that), in advance, what the future policy moves are with regard to foreign policy decisions? That's fairly ridiculous to even consider.

Well Zow, I'd qualify a guy who was UN Secretary-General for 10 years as a highly informed opinion.

I pointed out the Canadian peacekeeping over war-making and dialogue over invasion policy goes back to St-Laurent and Pearson. Trudeau didn't just "make a comment," he described a Canadian tradition IMO.

Actually your 'gagging' is interesting, as I can see your point that war resisters are not properly refugees. One problem is Canada doesn't have a standard protocol for dealing with war resisters.

By the way I want to thank you for your civil tone, I am learning a lot from the discussion here. I am Canadian but haven't lived there for almost 20 years, maybe I'm out of touch. Maybe I'm idealist hehehe.

[JoeLassister]

I think it is always funny to refer to an ''illegal'' or ''legal'' war. Using guns, fighter planes, missils, spying, tanks, etc... lol

[Zowpeb]

Well Zow, I'd qualify a guy who was UN Secretary-General for 10 years as a highly informed opinion.

I pointed out the Canadian peacekeeping over war-making and dialogue over invasion policy goes back to St-Laurent and Pearson. Trudeau didn't just "make a comment," he described a Canadian tradition IMO.

Actually your 'gagging' is interesting, as I can see your point that war resisters are not properly refugees. One problem is Canada doesn't have a standard protocol for dealing with war resisters.

By the way I want to thank you for your civil tone, I am learning a lot from the discussion here. I am Canadian but haven't lived there for almost 20 years, maybe I'm out of touch. Maybe I'm idealist hehehe.

Regardless of how informed his opinion is, or what his position is/was, this does not change the legality from the UN's perspective. It does not change the fact that the war resisters also therefore deserted based on opinion.

I fully agree, there is a history of Canadian's being world diplomats and peacekeepers. Trudeau's comment, at that time, also described a completely different situation then what war resisters are doing today. Again, it comes back to a draft versus volunteer force in my mind. There is a big difference between someone fleeing a war they don't agree with after volunteering to defend their government and country versus someone fleeing because they were drafted against their will.

I agree a standard protocol is needed. However, immigration and refugee issues are a large one in this country. We like to define ourselves as multi-cultural...and we are for the most part. The issues often lie in where/how to draw the line...there are A LOT of people in this country who should not be allowed to stay for various reasons. By ignoring the issue this country is setting a dangerous precedent both legally and in the minds of a large immigrant population. A set of enforceable, and enforced, standards would define things above and beyond simply war resisters and it's much needed. I have no problem allowing loads of immigrants and refugees into this country if they want to become Canadian...and not just abuse our hospitality and social net. But this is opening a whole other can of worms...

Sometimes my comments may come off as harsh...I know that...but I'm admittedly opinionated...I do try to stay on the civil side and debate fairly.

[Athlétique.Canadien]

I pointed out the Canadian peacekeeping over war-making and dialogue over invasion policy goes back to St-Laurent and Pearson. Trudeau didn't just "make a comment," he described a Canadian tradition IMO.

A wonderful Canadian tradition is peacekeeping. Unfortunately, blue helmets and the notion of peacekeepers is becoming obsolete. Perhaps in certain scenarios and in certain regions peacekeeping might work but it won't in Afghanistan. The world is definitely changing. I think peacekeeping really was eroded during the conflict in the Balkans. Peaceeeping was reduced to, "stop, or I'll say stop again". Meanwhile, genocide was happening.

The Taliban would love blue helmets. They really do stand out and catch the eye. Makes it far easier to find and snipe them too.

As a matter of fact. Right now in the world, which conflict or war could become more passive if we inserted peacekeepers?

Sad but true. Maybe they'll make a comeback. Right now the UN itself is reaching out more to militant solutons than peacekeeping. That has a great deal to do as to why we are in Afghanistan. It staggers me that people don't realize or forget that Nato was asked to go under a UN mandate.

[Zowpeb]

A wonderful Canadian tradition is peacekeeping. Unfortunately, blue helmets and the notion of peacekeepers is becoming obsolete. Perhaps in certain scenarios and in certain regions peacekeeping might work but it won't in Afghanistan. The world is definitely changing. I think peacekeeping really was eroded during the conflict in the Balkans. Peaceeeping was reduced to, "stop, or I'll say stop again". Meanwhile, genocide was happening.

There is an interesting read in Macleans by former General Lewis-Mackenzie about General Dallaire's mission in Africa. He seems to have no love for Dallaire over this issue and he implies that it was Dallaire's responsibility to IGNORE some ridiculous "don't shoot" orders from the UN...in fact, he makes some bold accusations over the deaths and abuses the peace-keepers suffered while 800,000 people were murdered. Peace-keeping with your hands tied on the issue of force has nothing to do with Canadian tradition on the issue of peacekeeping...if anything I think it just opens a debate on the best way to implement a peace-keeping unit in a hostile environment.