Not very good snark. It is possible to say that the soldier was indeed brave while still pointing out that it was irresponsible and stupid of his UN masters to have left him in harm's way.
Peter,
Beggars can't be choosers - I'll take whatever snark I can get. The Canadian blogosphere has been a much gentler place during Skippy's absense. :P
Peter,
Funny, that is exactly the argument of the anti-Afghanistan side of the debate:
"It is possible to say that the soldier was indeed brave while still pointing out that it was irresponsible and stupid of his Conservative Government masters to have left him in harm's way"
Or does that logic only apl to the UN? How's that moral relativism working out for ya?
Nice to see you back skippy, keep it coming.
It was his job to be in harm's way.
The UN is there to monitor the ceasefire and report on violations. That mission is ongoing.
Stephen Harper clearly does not support it.
Mike: To say that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan and this UN outpost (read: obstacle for Hezbollah to hide behind) are equivalent is nonsensical.
You can take that position on Afghanistan if you'd like. Unfortunately, you won't have the opportunity to explain that position to the children of Afghanistan and subsequently tell them to fuck off and that they'll soon be subject to the tender mercies of the Taliban once again.
Skippy: So your intention was to illustrate how Stephen Harper is indifferent to the UN's intervention in Lebanon? Congratulations. That was a point of clarification that desperately needed to be made.
Peter, exactly how many metres from the UN position was Hezbollah hiding? I'm sure you have the answer, since you assert that Hezbollah was hiding behind the UN patrol base.
As for the UN "intervention" in Lebanon, there is a pre-existing ceasefire monitoring mission (no mandate to intervene), to which Canada has contributed. Since Canada has decided to contribute to that mission, presumably our government should be supporting it. Or, I guess, not. We only support the troops when it's convenient.
The problem here is that Stephen Harper misunderstands the nature of political courage. If political courage lay in fellating the President of the United States, Monica Lewinsky would be a hero. Stephen Harper has chosen the wrong role model.
Really, Peter, you're such fun. Nobody else has the courage to defend a position that is so clearly untenable. A whore would do it for money, but you do it for love.
It's cute.
Peter,
I actually support our mission in Afghanistan. I'm merely pointing out that your reasoning around the UN outpost is the SAME reasoning the anti-Afghanistan mission folks are using. And for all your blaming the UN, and excusing the IDF for actually launchng the laser-guided bomb, for the deaths at the outpost, you do realize that if it was too dangerous for our UN observers, Stephen Harper could have order him out, Or Gordon O'Connor. Or the higer ups at NDHQ in Ottawa. So if the UN is to blame for not ordering them out, so is Harper, for the exact same reasons.
But I'm sure you'll tell me how "its different" and indulge in the head-bobbing of which skipy speaks.
I agree with Skippy and so do the majority of Canadians..
Steve /the Wonder?/is living in his cocoon barely noticing what real Canadians feel and say.
A complete opposition what a leader should be.
marta
Peter Wrote:
read: obstacle for Hezbollah to hide behind
Peter,
You should perhaps read this.
http://
www.informationclearingho...rticle14386.htm
"The UN is there to monitor the ceasefire and report on violations. That mission is ongoing. " not really a ceasefire anymore is it? I would aruge that the mission is indeed over. Shame on the UN for not assessing the danger appropriately, shame on Harper for not assessing the UNs ability to assess.
The mission is ongoing, John, because the job is to report on violations.
Think hard. Think really hard.
Do ya think there might be something to report?
Yup, I think there report would read something like this.
"Dear Kofi,
Both sides are shooting at each other which is in violation to the ceasefire agreement. Do you want us to stick around and count how many times red shoots at blue versus blue shoots at red so we can write it up in a formal UN report? We don't think it's a "war" so much as it is a violation of the ceasefire agreement. Well keep you posted."
There is no need for a referee in the middle of a street fight.
Well, the last thing we'd want is neutral observers reporting the truth of what's happening on the ground, right?
Which is probably why the bomb went "astray."
The truth? It's a war. The "truth" went out the window long before the first shot was fired.
Leaving them there is asking for an incident, plain and simple. You don't need a PHD in common sense to see that. Doesn't matter, which side is at fault for those killed. The widows don't get much solace if they can write "it was the Jews fault" on their dead husbands tombstones.
I know, next time let's just put the CBC there to tell us what's going on. I mean, they are there to report the truth.
You are implying first hand knowledge is more important than the safety of the UN soldiers. I disagree, I think human life is not expendable for this desire.
You're an idiot, John, and you seem willing to tie yourself into endless logic-knots.
Their mission was to observe and report. They were soldiers. Soldiers die; that's part of the job. Now you're suggesting that if there's a risk of death, soldiers should be pulled out and their missions cancelled?
What's next? Firefighters should not approach fires, because they're dangerous? Police officers should not approach criminals, because of the risk of injury?
Please, keep it up. I need to be reminded of why I can't be bothered to blog these days.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Fuk you're retarted some times.
They were there to monitor the ceasefire. Once they got caught in the middle of war, they should have been pulled out. While I appreciate your military comittment, you are wrong on this one. These were preventable deaths irregardless of Hezbollah or IDF actions. Period.
I know what you're saying, doofus. It was a rhetorical question.
You evidently have no understanding of what ceasefire monitoring actually involves, and thus you continually miss the point. Here's a tip: ceasefire monitoring does not involve leaving when the ceasefire is breached.
A point of fact: the UN, in response to the deteriorating situation, ceased patrolling and confined their monitors to their clearly marked, years-old, fortified patrol bases, positions that were well known to the IDF. Despite their knowledge of the exact location of the UN bunker, the IDF managed to shell it accidentally for ten days straight before dropping a couple of bombs on it and then shouting "Oops!"
Oh, well. Don't let the colour of reality interfere with your partisanship.
Incidentally, it's spelled "retarded." The other word you were looking for, I believe, was "fuck," with a "C." Finally, "sometimes" is one word, not two. Need I point out the irony of the sentence from which I pulled those errors?
Excellent post. Thank you. I feel exactly the same way. I was away when Paeta was killed so I'm only dealing with it now. But I can tell you he was an awesome Canadian soldier and a terrific guy. He was also proud to be part of the U.N. He was a superb peacekeeper who was known for his special skills. As you know he was an instructor at the Peace Support Training Centre.So when Harper attacked the U.N. he was also attacking him. Which is as you pointed out simply beneath contempt.
It's just another sign of the moral vacuum the far right operates in this days. And another reason for you to stick around...
"Oh, well. Don't let the colour of reality interfere with your partisanship." You're kidding right? Thanks Pot or are you Kettle?
"A point of fact: the UN, in response to the deteriorating situation, ceased patrolling and confined their monitors to their clearly marked, years-old, fortified patrol bases, positions that were well known to the IDF. Despite their knowledge of the exact location of the UN bunker, the IDF managed to shell it accidentally for ten days straight before dropping a couple of bombs on it and then shouting "Oops!" " Yes, yes, I understand this. You have however, missed the point again. Shit happens during war, hell shit happens on my drive home. That's why I wear a seatbelt. Do I think I am going to get creamed by a cement truck, no, could it happen, yes, explaining the seatbelt.
Your argument is that the IDF did it on purpose, my argument is that as far as those soldiers go, it doesn't matter, they are still dead.
And yes, my spelling suks. I working hard on making better.
Very good, John. You have now argued yourself neatly into a circle.
Your original argument, to extend your own analogy, was that it is irresponsible to drive, so if you get creamed, who fuckin' cares? You shouldn't have been driving anyway.
My argument was that shit happens when you drive, but you drive when you have to drive. And when your government orders you to drive, they should stand behind you.
Especially so when that have made standing behind drivers a central part of their public rhetoric.
Keep it up. I need the comic relief.
John, since you have been so patient, maybe you can fill me in on a question that's been bugging me: Where the fuck (thanks for the spelling tip, Skip) were the UN people supposed to go? They were in the safest place for at least 100 miles. Does a convoy of jeeps travelling through a freefire zone on bombed-out roads and bridges sound like a good idea to you?
Don't be silly, Adam. Obviously, vehicles clearly marked with UN markings would be safe....
... if only because moving targets are harder to hit.
Where this whole thing becomes nebulous in my view is the meaning of the word 'mission'. The mission as I understand the PM's meaning is the specific macro mission our forces are performing in Afghanistan. That has been the focal point of all debate and discussion in this country.
Was the UN mission in Lebanon the same mission? Specifically no. But in the general sense it could be argued our soldier in Lebanon was performing a function easily pursuant to the same principles as the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.
There's an concept in law (I am not a lawyer) called a 'strict liability offence'. Essentially, if you commit the act, you're guilty notwithstanding your intent. Harper's guilty on this level in my view. Regardless of whether he knew or did not know of this soldier's mission, or whether this was the kind of mission that didn't comply with the new government's military philosophy (and perhaps just didn't get around to canceling the contract), once the knowledge was available that we had a man there he had no choice but take ownership of the policy, grit his teeth and tow the line.
Even so, a lot of people understand where he's coming from with his remarks. Just because the PM erred in not playing the game by no means implies the rest of us who are fed up with this useless organization of anti-semites need follow suit.
This has nothing to with temperment. Dog, my suggestion to you is that you mind your own before unloading your juvenile ad hominem attacks on those unwilling to sniff your behind. If your point stands on merit there is simply no need for such tactics.
I am truly amazed at the standard of perfection some people feel the new government and PM must be held to. And I see no evidence where the consequences of this fuck-up are grinding the nation's business to a stand-still. Thanx for pointing it out Skippy. You've made a valid assessment of the PM's performance on this one. Yes, I'm sure the government should come crashing down as a result but unfortunately, around here anyway, people are probably more preoccupied about what to eat for lunch.
The hilarity continues here with Strangelove's skilled use of faint praise, which the average hamster will be smart enough to see through.
Where, exactly, did I suggest that this was a hill for Harper's government to die on? I'm not demanding that the government be perfect. I'm pointing out that the Prime Minister, as usual, has turned out to be a hypocrite and a liar.
Thanks for conceding the point. I think most readers will be smart enough to ignore the tangents that followed.
Do you know this line from Kubrik's classic? It was Col. Mandrakes's reponse to Col. Jack Ripper's query as to whether he spilled to his Japanese torturers:
"No Jack. I don't think they wanted me to talk, really. I think it was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Funny thing is they make such bloody good cameras."
Do you make good cameras, Dog?
No. I use good cameras.
"Your original argument, to extend your own analogy, was that it is irresponsible to drive, so if you get creamed, who fuckin' cares? You shouldn't have been driving anyway." What the fuck, how do you get to that? Please show me where I implied that nobody cares. I know that would fit nicely into your argument but I never said nor implied that. I said shit happens, that's why I wear a seatbelt.
Adam, how do you know what the "safest place" was? And in this case, both you and the UN were wrong?
John, "who fuckin' cares?" and "nobody cares" mean two very different things.
Sorry, you're right, show me where I said "I don't care.". Also, please show where I implied that it's "irresponsible to drive"? I am just not seeing it.
"Adam, how do you know what the "safest place" was? And in this case, both you and the UN were wrong?"
Well, I can't argue with hindsight, can I? Maybe you can tell me, without the benefit of hindsight, what location was somehow safer than a clearly marked, long-established neutral structure.
Otherwise (while I never thought much of the driving analogy) you could just tell the driver he would have been safe from the cement truck if only he'd used the north-bound lanes to drive south that day.
John, I've called you illiterate before, and I hate being forced to repeat myself.
Do you understand what analogy is?
I would say that off of the southern Lebanese border would have been safer. Or in a neighbouring country, or in southern Israel...
Adam, are you implying that you could not forsee this being a more dangerous area than others. I mean come on. Your argument, while witty, is not applicable here because you are assuming that the north and southbound lanes are of equal danger when CLEARLY the build up of tanks and troops along the Israeli/Lebanese border should tell you that this area is more dangerous than others. Don't play stupid.
Yes, I understand what analogy is, what I dont understand is how, from my analogy that wearing a seat belt is a precaution when driving, you infer that my analogy is that it is irresponsible to drive and if you get in an accident, I could care less. Stop trying to be coy and answer the question.
John, why would I answer seriously when you're clearly making disingenuous attempts to tie me in knots?
I'm not playing stupid, John. I asked how they could get from where they were (which I maintain should have been relatively safe, especially from "laser guided bombs" or whatever) to someplace that would have been safer, given that all of the highways, bridges and population centres in Lebanon were under attack.
My analogical point was that driving south in the northbound lanes is CLEARLY less safe than using the southbound lanes, unless you have foresight of your hypothetical cement truck.
Don't accuse me of playing stupid just because I can't see the future. Maybe hindsight tells us that the UN should have run off screaming into the bushes when the bombing started but that was hardly the rational choice at the time.
Okay Adam, here are your choices, the Northbound lane which is ridden with booby traps and unforseen dangers or the south one which has none of these dangers. Yes, I have the foresight to see something might happen using the northbound lanes that using the southbound would avoid. Weird eh? It's like I have ESPN or something!
"John, why would I answer seriously when you're clearly making disingenuous attempts to tie me in knots?" I guess you wouldn't if you couldn't. Simple question, simple answer (or so your would think). You tied yourself doggy. Answer, don't answer, doesn't matter to me.
I already answered, John. Have a functionally literate friend interpret the analogy for you.
Oh you mean like here?
"John, why would I answer seriously when you're clearly making disingenuous attempts to tie me in knots"
Whatever, you are right skippy, you need not answer as your avoidance already did.
Okay, John, let me put this another way: please show me where I wrote anything that implied you had said it was irresponsible to drive.
You're demanding that I prove a point I didn't actually make. It's quite clear you're trolling, and frankly, I only keep responding because it's fun to watch you in action.
Now, answer the question.
"Your original argument, to extend your own analogy, was that it is irresponsible to drive, so if you get creamed, who fuckin' cares? You shouldn't have been driving anyway."
See it yet? How bout now?
Can you even read English, John?
Do you understand what it means to "extend your analogy?"
My god, I feel like we have been here before.
By you extending my analogy, you are implying and attempting to speak for me. Can you not see that? Of course you can cause you're not a stupid guy.
Well, I think you've just proven my point. What exactly are you arguing, again?
My skippy, I hope you are saving all this. A writer couldn't make up a dimwit like john if he tried.
Quite an entertaining thread.
john, how many UN missions have you been on? How much training in military SOP and ROE have you had in such things?
As I said before, you do realize that Harper or O'Connor could have ordered Canadian out of there if they thought there was too much danger. So the UN gets the blame for not ordering them out, but Harper and O'Connor get a pass. Why didn't Harper do it? If the UN is at fault, then so is Harper.
And "laser guided munitions" rarely go anyplace other than the place being painted by the laser. And in this case that place was a large white building with 6 foot high "UN" painted on it in blue letters. And inside that place were soldiers who were on the radio to the IDF up to 10 minutes before they died telling the IDF to stop.
In otherwords john, the popel at fault for those deaths are the IDF soldiers that actually did it. Blaming the UN for this simply makes you and Harper accomplices after the fact for their murder.
Actually Mike, if you could put away your partisan blinders for twelve seconds you would see that I did not "give Harper a pass" either.
I am an accomplice to murder now? Huh? Did you fall on your fucking head today or something? That's the stupidest analogy I have ever heard and clearly shows your are thinking with emotions and not objectivity.
I never said that the IDF was not responsible, I merely stated that this wouldn't have even been an issue if the UN and Canadian gov't had assessed the threat properly. You just assumed that because you like to play politics and don't actually read what's posted. Try again, go back and reread what I posted then wipe the foam off of your mouth and calm down.
"actually read what's posted" Such excellent advice, John! And just to close this loop:
"Dear Prime Minister Harper,
"I have been impressed by the way in which you have responded to the deaths of Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan, most recently yesterday, by steadfastly urging Canadians to support the troops and to support the mission. Loyal, courageous soldiers, I believe, deserve the leadership of loyal, courageous politicians.
"I was also impressed by your response to the death of Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, a courageous (and unarmed) Canadian soldier serving in Lebanon with the UN observer force. What could be more logical than to suggest that he should not have been there in the first place? That’s what I call supporting the mission!"
Commenting by HaloScan
