Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Hot Room - Episode 10: Wildroses and Birthdays | Main | Illegal Blasphemy in Ireland »

Thursday, July 23, 2009

When the Canucks Come Marching Home

Back in 1917 William Jerome and Seymour Furth had a hit with When the Yanks Come Marching Home:

For there'll be smiles and miles of tears,  
When the Yanks come marching home 
 There'll be tears enough you know to make a dozen rivers flow 
 Dressed in their torn and tattered suits of tan 
 From battle fields across the foam Hearts will beat with joy for every boy 
 When the Yanks come marching home.
A sentiment shared by a recent poll conducted on Canada's role in Afghanistan:

Canadians are proud of their men and women in uniform and support for the mission in Afghanistan is holding steady, but a majority of Canadians want all of the troops brought home in 2011 when Canada's mission there is due to end, according to the results of a new poll.

In 2008, 37 per cent of those surveyed by Ipsos Reid said all of the troops should be pulled out, while 45 per cent said they should stay for non-combat-related efforts, such as training Afghan security forces.

Now, 52 per cent say all the troops should leave Afghanistan when Canada's commitment there ends in July 2011. Only 27 per cent now say troops should stay to perform non-security-related duties.

The shift comes from a combination of mission fatigue and rising casualty figures. So far 103 Canadians have died fighting in Afghanistan, less than a third of the number of Canadian fatalites in the first 24 hours of D-Day. Afghanistan is the largest military operation conducted by Canadian forces since the Korean War. In the half century since the general public has been taught to think of Canada as a peacekeeping nation, a sharp contrast to the alleged war mongers to the South. 

Airbrushed from history has been Canada's military victories in two world wars. At Remembrance Day ceremonies the suffering of the fallen and the survivors are emphasized, not what they accomplished. Not the remarkable skill and planning of Vimy Ridge, or the dogged courage of Juno Beach. The image projected is of Canadian servicemen as hapless victims of circumstance, rather than soldiers of a free nation overcoming extraordinary odds. 

Intellectually most Canadians have no way of coping with the concept of a just war. Instinctively they feel a mixture of pride and pity - the last emotion evoked by poor quality news reels from long ago history classes. The soldiers must not be disrespected, the mission however is something profoundly uncomfortable. That Afghanistan was a breeding ground for Islamist terrorists, and military intervention lead to the overthrow of a nasty theocracy, lends a basic credibility to the mission. No one imagines that Afghanistan will be anything like an peaceful society in 2011. The attitude now is that we've done our bit, so we can go home now.  George M Cohan's legendary World War One song expressed a very different sentiment:

Over There, Over There

Send the word, send the word, 

Over There

That the Yanks are coming, 

The Yanks are coming,

The drums rum tumming everywhere

So prepare, 

Say a Prayer

Send the word,

Send the word to beware

We'll be over, we're coming over.

And we won't be back till it's over over there!

Posted by Richard Anderson on July 23, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

This idea of Canada being a "peacekeeper" is a myth. The military had been preparing for war as part of NATO long before Suez. They also planned to defend North America alongside - GASP - the United States as part of NORAD. Peacekeeping was always secondary venture, it was merely emphasized to give a more politically correct and palatable image to the billions spent on tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, fighter aircraft, warships, etc.

Moreover, I love it when these Trudeauist "nationalists" who simultaneously laud peacekeeping while lamenting the loss of the Avro Arrow, a warplane whose sole mission was to launch nuclear-tipped air-to-air rockets at Soviet bombers. Pathetic. I love deconstructing these myths - shows what fools the fascist Ontarians are.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-23 8:17:57 AM


I've spoken to Canadian Peacekeepers who were in Bosnia. Beleive me when I tell you...they weren't there to keep the peace. The stories some of these guys tell about what went on over there would curl your hair.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-23 8:54:13 AM


The Canadian military has no business being over there.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-23 8:55:48 AM


The UN, NATO, and the Canadian people disagree. The world is fighting a defensive war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and elsewhere. It is the good fight akin to World War II. No one ever said it would be easy.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-23 9:27:46 AM


@ ZP

the Canadian people disagree

Pretty sure I'm one of those Canadian people, so this statement is factually incorrect.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-23 11:27:27 AM


"Moreover, I love it when these Trudeauist "nationalists" who simultaneously laud peacekeeping while lamenting the loss of the Avro Arrow, a warplane whose sole mission was to launch nuclear-tipped air-to-air rockets at Soviet bombers. Pathetic."

The Arrow was to be equipped with Sparrow medium-range radar-guided missiles. It carried all its weapons in a bay in its belly, which was not nearly large enough to hold the nuclear weapons of the period. Nuclear missiles may pack more punch for their size than conventional munitions, but they're hardly the size of a Sidewinder.

The Bomarc missile, which replaced the Arrow, was designed to carry a nuclear warhead, but the Diefenbaker administration decided not to introduce nuclear weapons into Canada's arsenal. Since the Bomarc was not accurate enough to bring down a bomber with only a conventional warhead, the Bomarc was also scrapped.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 12:00:13 PM


"The Canadian military has no business being over there."

Canada was specifically mentioned by Taliban and bin Laden, among a host of other western nations, as being targeted for terrorist attacks. We have EVERY business being over there until the Taliban are as vanquished as the Tamils.

"Pretty sure I'm one of those Canadian people, so this statement is factually incorrect."

Well, I'm also a Canadian person, and I oppose the legalization of marijuana, so by extension, Canadians oppose the legalization of marijuana.

Scott, this isn't your own thread, so you can't get away with the same crap you pull there. Must rankle.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 12:03:38 PM


@ Shane

Canadians oppose the legalization of marijuana.

The correct thing to say is that some Canadians feel this way.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-23 12:05:21 PM


Shane: while the Arrow was intended to use the Sparrow, the AIR-2 Genie nuclear tipped rocket was also part of its arsenal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie

The Canadian Air Force used it on their CF-101 Voodoo interceptors afterward. So the Bomarc was not the only nuclear weapon platform Canada ever had.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-23 12:12:01 PM


"The correct thing to say is that some Canadians feel this way."

And that is what you should have said to start with. Left unmade is your case for our not being over there.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 1:03:52 PM


the Canadian people disagree.

Really Zeb. Guess what! I'm here...in Canada and when actually ask "Canadian People" you get a non committal or negative response most of the time.
I ask people about things like this all the time, I've yet to meet one single Canadian who thinks we should be there.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-23 2:00:59 PM


JC: the Liebral/NDP/Green Party has no problems making that claim. In fact, the NDP was a strong supporter of the Afghanistan War, because Chretien (it appeared to them) opposed the Iraq War. They're so lame.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-23 2:46:40 PM



Thank You to the Rt. Honourable Jean Chretien for keeping the C.F.'s out of a direct combat role in the illegal Iraq War based on @950 Lies as per the Felonious GWB, his five time draft deferring, tortuous, shoot'em in the face, a real 'Dick' Cheney.

Just how many C.F. Body Bags coming home from the sands of Mesopotamia would have been satisfactory to our then, official Leader of the Opposition Stephen Harper and his cabal of CRAP'ers??

Stephen Harper: face painted, perfectly coiffed and portly, appearing on USA FOX NEWS, bemoaning the fact of non Canadian participation in an illegal War based on @ 950 Lies.

Stephen Harper admitting to his Theocratic Extreme Evangelical USA Handlers on USA FOX NEWS on how he is ashamed to be Canadian.

Yo Harper! Nice Cowboy Hat (Made in the USA)

Oooohhh, the CRAPture!

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-07-23 3:24:48 PM


Pity the soldier who dies to protect lies.

Posted by: Todd | 2009-07-23 3:39:00 PM


Jeff: nice of you to qualify your statements about a "direct combat role" in Iraq. So Chretien's extensive lying about Canada not supporting the Iraq War "on principle" and yet not-so-secretly allowing CF personnel to serve over there, in many cases in direct combat? For shame.

Take your blinders off.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-23 5:31:19 PM


"I ask people about things like this all the time, I've yet to meet one single Canadian who thinks we should be there."

What they think does not matter. Canada has treaty obligations to NATO. No war is popular, at least not after the initial flag-waving is over. That's no excuse for leaving the job half-done. World War II was a direct result of leaving World War I half-done.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:33:18 PM



When will our CRAPer Minority P.M. demand an inquiry into the death of C.F. Member Major Paeta Hess-Von Kruedener?

Canadian Maj. Hess- Von Kruedener was killed by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF )while stationed at a legitimate UN outpost in Lebanon during the Israeli/Lebanese conflict of 2006.

A Canadian military board of inquiry found no evidence that anyone from the UN or C.F. should shoulder any of the blame- that the Israeli Defence Forces as a whole is responsible.

Poor CRAPer Harper. So many menorahs to light/ cash to collect and sooo little time for murdered C.F. members.

Oooohhh, the CRAPture.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-07-23 6:46:14 PM


Zeb, the AIR-2 Genie article does not mention the Avro Arrow (although the Avro Arrow article does). I have studied the Arrow for 25 years and nothing I have read ever indicated that it was intended to carry nuclear missiles. Although one has to concede that it would be a sensible idea, it probably would not have happened even had the Arrow entered service, for political reasons.

Although Canada had an agreement with the U.S. that would make AIR-2s available in the event of war, they were kept under U.S. custody. It seems unlikely they would have been able to reach Canadian bases and loaded onto the Voodoos in time be of help once the DEW started chirping.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:47:19 PM


Jeff, that's an incorrect use of the @ sign, which means "at." If you're trying to say "about," then the correct sign is the tilde (~).

And that is the only part of your rant worth replying to. Let us know when the drugs wear off.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:50:14 PM


"Pity the soldier who dies to protect lies."

I pity more the unarmed civilians who die because men would not face the truth.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:50:58 PM


Shane: I see your point, but the Voodoo was equipped with the Genie rocket. It is plausible that the Arrow would have used it as well had it entered service. Nonetheless, I find it contradictory to honor "missions of peace" on one hand and a weapon of war on the other. These "Canadian nationalists" are a funny bunch.


Franklin: there was an inquiry launched during Mr. Harper's administration. It concluded that the IDF took full responsibility for the error without laying any personal responsibility. It seems that Hezbollah used an area around the post to launch rockets at Israel in order to avoid counterbattery fire. Hezbollah therefore ought to be held accountable. Please do your homework.


Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-23 7:00:32 PM


if you are against the legalization of marijuana you are, by default, in favor of: Government control of your body mind and soul, the subsidization of organized crime and corrupt police, the endangerment of the public, the wasting of taxpayers' dollars, the suppression of a valuable medicine, and the financing of international terrorism.
To be more clear: If you favor prohibition, you favor crime, and therefore, should be locked up in a filty cage.

Posted by: Russell Barth | 2009-07-24 3:53:00 AM


No war is popular, at least not after the initial flag-waving is over. That's no excuse for leaving the job half-done. World War II was a direct result of leaving World War I half-done.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:33:18 PM

England was angling on a war with Germany since the late 1800's because the industrial activity of Germany was becoming a threat to the English monopoly in industry, shipping and colonization.
They finally made some excuse out of some Prince being shot (or something like that)to get their war.
The Treaty of Versailles left Germany a pauper and was meant to do so for a very long time.
Hitler (unfortunately) was able to capitalize on German resentment and bring an army to bear on what evolved very quickly into WW2.
Had the English not started the whole thing in the first place it never would have happened.
So what job is it that we left half done?
We didn't starve enough Germans to death?
Because that's what caused their eventual capitulation to the Treaty of Versailles. Starvation.

And you're damned right war is not popular and F*ck NATO anyway. Just another Globalist NON Government Organization. Despicable lot they are too.

Here's a thought on how popular wars are...

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
~ Hermann Goering ~

This might read as though I would have supported Nazi Germany. I would not have. Nor do I support any other group involved with human sacrifice for political, idealogical or monetary gain. I sure as hell don't support the sacrifice of Canadian's or Americans so some politician can lie to us about all the good we're doing "over there".

Weaponry should ONLY be used in self defense. Its the only moral reason for having it.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-24 6:30:43 AM


Zeb, that's correct, the Voodoo was fitted with the ability to use the Genie rocket. However, to my knowledge no Canadian Voodoo ever carried one in Canadian airspace. My understanding is they were stored on U.S. bases and would be released to Canada for use...if there was time.

The squat, fat Genie rocket would have required a rebuilt belly bay for the Arrow, which was was fitted with slatted doors and a trapeze mechanism to introduce the missiles into the airstream. It was a lot more complicated than just changing a couple of wires on an external hardpoint. Belly bays also appeared on American fighters of the same vintage, notably the Delta Dagger and Delta Dart, and the fact that they disappeared from use testifies to their inflexibility where mixed loadouts are concerned.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-24 7:27:11 AM


"Weaponry should ONLY be used in self defense. Its the only moral reason for having it."

The Afghanistan War IS an act of self-defense. The US invoked its right to individual self-defense according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. That same article also allows for collective measures, which permitted NATO to invoke its Article 5 clause stating that an attack on one is an attack on all. The United Nations Security Council authorized all of these actions. So to say that the world is fighting in Afghanistan for gain or ideology misses some valid legal points.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-24 7:29:52 AM


"if you are against the legalization of marijuana you are, by default, in favor of: Government control of your body mind and soul, the subsidization of organized crime and corrupt police, the endangerment of the public, the wasting of taxpayers' dollars, the suppression of a valuable medicine, and the financing of international terrorism."

Excuse me, restrictions on what you can buy restrict neither body nor soul. The government doesn't subsidize organized crime; lawbreaking drug users do that. Keeping dangerous substances out of our children's hands is not a waste of money. Marijuana is hardly indispensable as a medicine, and again, it is the users that fund the terrorism, not the government. So save your sermons and insults for the mirror.

"If you favor prohibition, you favor crime, and therefore, should be locked up in a filty cage."

Well, I guess I'm safe then, since there's no such thing as a "filty" cage. Is that like "faulty"? Like your brain seems to be?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-24 7:30:49 AM


"England was angling on a war with Germany since the late 1800's because the industrial activity of Germany was becoming a threat to the English monopoly in industry, shipping and colonization.
They finally made some excuse out of some Prince being shot (or something like that)to get their war."

Read the history, JC. England may have been wary of Germany's growing power since unification in 1871, but they didn't want a war in 1914. In fact, the most direct result of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the shelling of Belgrade by the Austrians. Russia moved in to protect the Serbs, who were fellow Slavs, and Germany intervened to protect Austria, their only ally in Europe. When Russia refused to back down, Germany declared war on Russia, compelling France and England, allies of Russia, to declare war on Germany. The direct causes of the war were Serbian restlessness under the Austrian yoke and Austrian intransigence. Wilhelm II's nonstop blustering and posing did not help either.

"The Treaty of Versailles left Germany a pauper and was meant to do so for a very long time."

As a matter of fact, Germany will not have finished repaying those war reparations until the year 2020.

"Hitler (unfortunately) was able to capitalize on German resentment and bring an army to bear on what evolved very quickly into WW2."

The Germans did not resent their defeat so much as they resented their treatment afterward. Britain and America pushed for a more equitable peace, but France, which had been devastated by the war, would have none of it. In fact, the Treaty stopped considerably short of what the French would have imposed had they been given their way.

"Had the English not started the whole thing in the first place it never would have happened."

The English were not responsible, as outlined above.

"So what job is it that we left half done? We didn't starve enough Germans to death? Because that's what caused their eventual capitulation to the Treaty of Versailles. Starvation."

The war was concluded properly; the peace was not. Furthermore, when Germany began to remilitarize, the English, wary of another conflict, did nothing.

"And you're damned right war is not popular and F*ck NATO anyway. Just another Globalist NON Government Organization. Despicable lot they are too."

I'm sorry; was that supposed to constitute an argument?

"Nor do I support any other group involved with human sacrifice for political, idealogical or monetary gain. I sure as hell don't support the sacrifice of Canadian's or Americans so some politician can lie to us about all the good we're doing "over there"."

Well, I do.

"Weaponry should ONLY be used in self defense. Its the only moral reason for having it."

It's being used against an enemy that has said, "We are not fighting so you will give us something. We are fighting to exterminate you." And backed those threats with action.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-24 7:47:32 AM


The United Nations Security Council authorized all of these actions. So to say that the world is fighting in Afghanistan for gain or ideology misses some valid legal points.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-24 7:29:52 AM

Still spouting statist propoganda? Figures.
I'll repeat...F*ck NATO.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-24 7:56:19 AM


I'm sorry; was that supposed to constitute an argument?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-24 7:47:32 AM

No it was a statement of position.

As for the rest, I stand by my original post and choose to ignore all rationalization of war mongers, for being what it is...immoral and unprincipled.

We have NO business in Afghanistan, None!
But then you soldier types have been trained and some just love to get out there and Kill kill kill...

The rest have my respect.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-24 8:02:52 AM


A thirst for slaughter is usually a liability to a soldier, JC. It betokens poor discipline and blinds the soldier to subtler, more effective strategies. The role of the soldier is to destroy the enemy as a fighting force; if that can be accomplished with a few carefully placed shots instead of a carpet-bombing campaign, so much the better.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-24 8:23:57 AM


@ JC "and choose to ignore all rationalization of war mongers"

Sometimes that's what you need to do.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-24 8:26:27 AM


If the war in Afghanistan was only defensive they would have sent in the SEALs and what-ever high tech support was required for that mission, got bin Laden and the other key people in a month or two and it would have been over years ago. It was right for Canada to participate to the extent of helping the U.S. defend itself from people being sheltered there; but the war there has been far more than defence since after the first few months.

As for this being a just war, the comparison being WW2. Where is the comparison to defending countries that are invaded by a particularly noxious authoritarian group bent on world domination and mass slaughter with the invasion of a country and then staying there indefinitely as is the intent with both recent conquests in the area? By this comparison Iran helping in Afghanistan would be closer to a just war as they would be defending the invaded. See how silly that concept is on this war?

Posted by: V. M. Smith | 2009-07-24 10:26:44 AM


That's like saying D-Day was an act of aggression. It was an offensive action aimed to restore the rightful governments of the United Nations from the fascist powers.

In Afghanistan, NATO and its Allies are defending themselves, collectively, against the terrorists and their allies who attacked the United States in an unprovoked act of aggression on September 11, 2001. The new Afghani government may appear to cynics to be a puppet regime with little real power beyond Kabul, but it is the internationally recognized administration of that country.

Canada's actions, and that of its allies, are as legal as it gets. No amount of cynicism or derision is going to change that anytime soon. You people might as well look for Obama's Kenyan birth certificate instead.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-24 10:48:09 AM


""Excuse me, restrictions on what you can buy restrict neither body nor soul. The government doesn't subsidize organized crime; lawbreaking drug users do that. Keeping dangerous substances out of our children's hands is not a waste of money. Marijuana is hardly indispensable as a medicine, and again, it is the users that fund the terrorism, not the government. So save your sermons and insults for the mirror.""

Yes they do create restrictions, psychoactive substances have been used for THOUSANDS of years in religion. Ie. ones soul. Drugs are actually at the heart of most religions, despite the move away from them in modern times, most are at some point involved in drug use. As far as body goes, fairly simple, they dont allow me to consume what i want. Ie. Put it in me... My body.

Now people seeking out mind altering substances is nothing new, has been done for 10 thousand years in the case of cannabis, so using cannabis or any drug as recreational, is pretty much a part of the human condition and will not stop. By making cannabis illegal they offer a monopoly to drug cartels to sell and profit from the behavior, and they do. Therefor the gov subsidizes organized crime by keeping it illegal.

""Keeping dangerous substances out of our children's hands is not a waste of money.""
Acutally they are spending money and keeping cannabis in a state where is is much easier for kids to obtain then regulated substances like Alcohol or Tobacco, and surveys attest to this. So In Fact they are actually spending money and the consequence is easier access for kids.

""Marijuana is hardly indispensable as a medicine, and again, it is the users that fund the terrorism, not the government.""
THEN WHY ARE ALL THE MAJOR DRUG COMPANYS WORKING ON CANNABIS AND CANNABINOID BASED DRUGS? They are trying to make something as effective as natural cannabis is, but something unique they can PATIENT. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE A COMPANY, A ORGANIZATION WITH PROFIT FOCUSED GOALS.

The LAWS create the high prices, which make it lucrative as a business. Allowing gangs and "terrorism" to profit. It has been used for 10,000 years and intoxication is human nature. So no, it is the GOVERNMENT that ALLOWS terrorists to profit.

GET A CLUE SHANE!!

Posted by: Baker | 2009-08-11 1:10:55 PM


Shane, Read "Canada's Nuclear Weapons". The Arrow was certainly big enough to carry the Genie internally or externally. The F-89J carried two on wing pylons. "The squat fat Genie" was even test fired from the centerline of an F-104(check YouTube). The Genie was approximately 22 inches in diameter and was easily carried internally by the F-101B/F and F-106A/B. The fact that these aircraft carried weapons internally had nothing to do with their withdrawl from service. They were Air Defense Interceptors not Tactical fighters and not required to carry multiple weapons loads. The 101's carried their Falcons externally and the 106 carried the Falcons internally both aircraft extended the launcher rails prior to firing. Genie rockets for Canadian CF-101's were in fact stored on Canadian bases and loaded on Alert aircraft, there was no wait time for delivery from U.S. bases.
Shane I don't know where you got your Bomarc or Genie information. Canadian Bomarc missiles and Voodoo's were armed with nuclear warheads. Check the Internet the details are out there with extensive detail as to when and where weapons were delivered and by what USAF aircraft.
Google 425th Munitions Maint Sqdn.

Posted by: Jim McIntosh | 2009-11-03 11:35:02 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.