June 11 - It seems like a lifetime ago when President Bush said that he had looked into Russian President Putin's eyes and "seen his soul." The press mocked that assessment (of course) but one of the things we've learnt about President Bush that when he tosses out comments like that one it is wise to shut up, pay attention, and see what transpires over the long run.

Russia was opposed to the Iraq War, but at least they were consistent: they also opposed the NATO bombing of Kosovo. (Consistency may be the mark of small minds, but inconsistency is often an indication of opportunism.)

There are still some open questions about Russian involvement in Saddamite Iraq including the final days before the fall of Baghdad, but if the Bush administration chose to see how much rope the Russians might require, it seemed that the length was short the amount they needed to hang themselves and we have been able to maintain cordial relations with Russia.

Actually, relations between the USA and Russia seem the best possible between two sovereign nations: we disagree, but do so agreeably; Russia pursues courses in her best interests, we pursue ours; we didn't ratify Kyoto, and neither did they.

In short, both countries are behaving like adults without the burden of control freakery that seems to consume some of our other allies.

Whereas the foreign leaders who are said to prefer a Kerry presidency choose to remain hidden, the Russian leader has come as close as is proper to publicly taking a stand and does so consistent with his opposition to the war in Iraq: Putin Takes Bush's Side Against Democrats on Iraq saying

"I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same.

"It suffices to recall Yugoslavia. Now look at them. They don't like what President Bush is doing in Iraq."

(Link via Let It Bleed. I found while my post fermented that Kate at the Western Standard blog, the Shotgun, has also picked up the story from the Reuters link from which the Yahoo article was taken.)

Posted by: Debbye at 09:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

June 6 - Peter Worthington reminds us of things We should remember about the storming of Juno Beach by Canadian soldiers 60 years ago, and Mark Bonokoski reminds us to remember today's Canadian soldiers who serve in Afghanistan, the Golan Heights, and Bosnia.

The problem with lies is the intellectual disconnect necessary to maintaining those lies: if Canada has always been a peacekeeping nation, how does that square with those who served in the Boer War, WWI, WWII and Korea? Clearly the Canadian participation on D-Day was a military offensive, yet the Canadian Prime Minister is in France to comemorate that non-peacekeeping mission.

The lack of financial support for the military and the cynical misuse of funds earmarked for the military (exemplified by charging the military budget for former PM Chretien's purchase of two Executive Jets from Bombardier) resulted in Canada's meagre troop assignment in Haiti, the only other francophone nation in this hemisphere and thus the only place in which a French-speaking military command would be of practical value.

How many young Canadians have enlisted in the US military? How many young Canadians have considered doing so? Both the Conservative and Liberal parties have promised to increase the funding and size of the Canadian military, but to what end?

I'm an American, so I see the military through American eyes. I can't accurately judge how Canadians see their military but I do wonder at the pacifist philosophy of the ruling Liberal Party that seeks to recruit young Canadian men and women to a military that is not supposed to fight.

French President Chirac reportedly warned US President Bush against making any comparisons to the war in Iraq during D-Day commemorations, which of course drew more attention to those comparisons than any words President Bush might have spoken!

We finally learnt on Sept. 11 that evil never dies but merely assumes a new face, yet on this D-Day anniversary we are hearing the usual platitude that they fought so that we don't have to which is also is a lie. The truth is that they fought so that we would be able to continue to do so.

Be grateful to those brave men who stormed the beaches, and do so by remaining true to their cause. That is the only possible tribute.

Posted by: Debbye at 11:41 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

June 1 - Yesterday was the third Memorial Day since Sept. 11, and, as on the past three, I spent the day online but couldn't find the heart to link or post.

I think I have come to understand the full measure of Memorial Day. We collectively pay our respects to our collective dead and, as a nation and as a family, seek healing. There is comfort in collective grief.

Then we square our shoulders, and proceed with the mission.

It seems to harsh to put it like that, but what else is there? We knew going into Afghanistan that we would be burying young Americans who deserved to lead full and productive lives. We knew going into Iraq that it would be bloody, and when the fight for Baghdad didn't materialize, we feared the very things that have come to pass.

We've spent nearly three years waiting for the other shoe to drop on the homefront and, despite that fear in the backs of our minds, we've stood our ground, overcome setbacks, and kept the pressure on.

Those who deliberately shed the blood of civilians hope that their actions will terrify and cause strength, heart and will to fail. When attempts at appeasement and conciliation result in the enemy believing their victims won't fight back, the last possible deterrent has been removed and thus our last possible hope for defense. All that remains is to surrender or go on the offensive.

(Well, actually there is a third alternative: we can nuke Mecca. Threatening something the enemy holds dear is sound military strategy, but taking out Mecca would probably be the very last card we'd have to play.)

Yes, I know. We should try something else. All those who claim to be wiser, nobler and more enlightened than we speak those two words but offer no solutions or strategies even as they blame us for not coming up with that unspecified something else.

And then it's our fault for not being smarter than they because we didn't come up with the solution that they couldn't provide.

Why am I supposed to listen to such people again? They've already admitted they're dumber than me.

Blood answers blood, and anyone who doesn't comprehend that is either very young or very naive but it is certain that our enemy understands that.

Those who bewail that an armed response sets a cycle of violence into motion are evidently unaware that a cycle of violence was already in motion; those who fret about "how it will end" overlook that it will end when the enemy is dead.

There will be more tears shed on next year's Memorial Day too, and some of them may be shed on behalf of civilians killed on home soil in a terrorist attack. We've become hardened and battle-scarred, and the next attack won't be met with the shock and disbelief of Sept. 11. We'll handle it.

Posted by: Debbye at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.