Honouring our Canadian heroes - National Post

Do not rely on the mainstream media, the socialists, and most of the liberals, as well as the Quebecois even if some of the great warriors and leaders in appropriate causes are Quebecers, to honour them. I am pleased that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, and Minister of Defecnce Peter Mackay, along with others of the Conservative Government, honoured Lieutenant General Joseph Jacques Charles "Charlie" Bouchard CMM MSC CD, Royal Canadian Air Force general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bouchard

Honouring our Canadian heroes- editorial, National Post

The United States tends to deify its military leaders, turning them into cabinet members, presidential candidates and media celebrities.

General David Petraeus, a successful commander in both Iraq and Afghanistan, was mentioned as a possible presidential candidate before accepting a job from President Barack Obama as head of the CIA. General Colin Powell might have beaten Mr. Obama as the first black president if he'd agreed to run, but settled for secretary of state. General Norman Schwarzkoff, known as "Stormin' Norman" when he led the first U.S. war against Iraq, was similarly feted as a prime candidate to serve as commander-in-chief.

We don't do that in Canada. General John de Chastelain, who played a crucial role in disarming the IRA and ending the decades of sectarian slaughter in Ireland, could sidle up to you in the local grocery line-up and go completely unrecognized. General Lewis MacKenzie became well known for his role in Sarajevo during the Bosnian war, but failed in an effort to win a seat in the House of Commons. General Rick Hillier may be the closest we have to a military media star, mooted as a potential leader in both federal and provincial politics, but since stepping down as chief of defence staff has stayed largely out of the news.

In that understated tradition, a ceremony was held on Thursday in Ottawa for LieutenantGeneral Charles Bouchard, who commanded NATO forces in Libya during the successful effort to oust Muammar Gaddafi and his regime. The mission was heavily criticized before and during its nine months, attacked as too little, too tentative, unrelated to Western interests and doomed to failure. It proved to be none of those things, helping to engineer an end to one of Africa's worst and longest-running dictatorships, which had represented a source of chronic instability and a support network for terrorism over the years. It did so without losing a single soldier, and while taking care to minimize damage to infrastructure and casualties among Libyan civilians. Though the two aren't directly comparable, the record stands out next to the many problems and bloated casualty list of Iraq.

If he was an American military man, Lt.-Gen. Bouchard would be in line for his choice of the Republican presidential nomination or Democratic vicepresidential slot, given his pick of cabinet posts in whichever administration emerges from next year's election, offered a multimillion-dollar advance for his memoirs and featured as guest expert on either CNN or FOX, whichever won the bidding war for his services.

In Canada he was awarded the Meritorious Service Cross by Governor-General David Johnston in a ceremony in the Senate. Interviewed recently by Postmedia News, he took care to deflect any suggestions he should be treated as a hero, deflecting all praise to the sailors of HMCS Charlottetown who were stationed off Misrata during fierce fighting, and the pilots of the Canadian surveillance and fighter aircraft who flew high above Libya for seven months.

"These are the heroes," Lt.-Gen. Bouchard told Postmedia News. "And it's important that people understand that they are heroes much like the people in Afghanistan are heroes as well. These are the true Canadian people who need to be recognized."

A very Canadian response. As a country we may not make as much noise as our neighbours, but we should never let our heroes mistake that as a lack of appreciation or respect for what they've done for us.

 

That would be a decent article except that it (*)(*)(*)(*) on American military leaders more than it praised Canada's.

 

I agree the American politicians expect every nation to spend 4% of GDP and send thousends of troops and billions worth in assets to fight American wars, this will never happen, and why should we fight US wars, they don't help us. Like the UK sends 10,000 troops to Afghanistan and Iraq and the US twines and says we aren't good enough, ok then fine next time we will not help, then see what happens. I mean the UK can't afford to be fighting wars where it has no gain speeding 10 billion a year for the last ten years, that money should have been spend on UK assets, not fighting pointless wars. I mean when the UK does take the lead, in west Africa, the Balkans and Libya, what happens, we don't get bogged down and spend tens of billion fighting the war and losing troops. I wouldn't worry to much about that Fox thing, as Gates said Canada was doing a good job, and said northing about the UK, France or Turkey, you gave jets for the operation in Libya, more than the Germans did. Many people all over the world have a great deal of respect for the Candian military, that includes the US.

 

West Africa is still a mess, the Balkans wasn't led by Britain, and Libya was a smallish air campaign without any real commitment that also wasn't "led" by Britain.

No one questions the competence of British and Canadian forces, but don't pretend that these minor skirmishish and interventions somehow compare in military complexity or difficulty to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The author of the article is a moron for trying to compare Libya to Iraq, and for trying to imply that it was a Canadian led operation. He's dismissing the heavy contributions of France, the U.K., the U.S., and others.

Also, I think you'll find that the U.S. is quite grateful for British contribution to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Canadians have also contributed pretty heavily to operation in Afghanistan.

 

That's my point UK or French lead operations are smaller, so we don't waste billion and lose many good troops, west Africa may still be a mess by we are not in the mess, unlike Afghanistan or Iraq. I know the US lead the Balkans, and it's now controlled by Europeans, who should have acted in the first place. The UK lead in Libya in overall terms, but on the military side the US did more and on the diplomatic side the French did more, and it has worked because the French and UK were not sucked in to the Chinese and Russian trap. Show a one bit of US writing say the UK did a good enough job in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

Of course, in Libya, the UK and rest were only aiding an already spawned and active resistance organization. It was also done against a nation with a much smaller military, which was already in a closed revolt with it's leadership.

There is no comparison between Libya and either Iran or Iraq. None at all. You might as well try and compare the Battle of Yorktown with The Battle of Normandy.

 

I am not saying there is a comparison, I am saying the US isn't very good at interventions, the UK and French are much better, that's why Jordan asked the UK to take the lead in Syria, and not the US.

 

And we're saying that the UK/France haven't intervened on their own anywhere in recent history. If you can show me in the last 20 or 30 years where either of those countries have acted largely on their own and intervened in a difficult/complicated theatre, I'd like to see it. The UK didn't take the lead, it was a NATO led mission with input from multiple countries. You're also out of your mind if you think Jordan's request had any impact on who led the NATO intervention.

 

What about France in the Ivory Coast? two times. I am not saying the UK or France can do it alown, I am saying when they take the lead in diplomatic terms and in Libya military terms, the out come is better than what happens when the US takes the lead. Please, NATO is the US/UK/France.

On Jordan I am talking about Syria, backing up the people fighting Assad, Turkey is really in the lead over Syria, but the UK is leading from the western world.

 

Of course, all French "interventions" since WWII were against her own colonies, like Indochina. And we saw how well those turned out.

Pretty much the same with the UK.

 

You do talk (*)(*)(*)(*) some times.

The UK was nowhere near Viet Nam, and when we were in 1946 we did a much better job than the US and France did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia–Malaysia_confrontation

Plus most of what the UK did was to stop the USSR and China, which they did quite will in India and most of the commonwealth, something the US failed at, because it's public doesn't have the stomach for war. This is why you are losing you power to China, no will or balls.

 

I suggest you reread what I said. I never said the UK was involved in Indochina.

Of course, all French "interventions" since WWII were against her own colonies, like Indochina.

Where do I ever mention the UK there?

Of course, the UK did not do so well in similar situations either. The Palistinian Mandate, India, and others were rebellions that the UK simply could not handle.

And you do not want me to mention the Malayan Emergency. Nobody seems to remember the 12 year long armed struggle which the UK totally lost.

 

I know you said, the UK post WW2 like French only fought wars to keep it's empire, which I have proven to be wrong.

You didn't mention the UK in IndoChina, that's my point, the UK did good work in IndoChina in 1946, much better than the French or US did, I just want some recognition of that.

But we weren't trying to keep those places, we were leaving, that's why they ended up so bad. However in India the British helped stop the Telangana rebellion, and tryed to stop the Jews, from taking the wrong land so they started kill the British.

The Malayan Emergency was a British/Commonwealth victory, the main British lose was in Indonesia.

 

Stop with your revisitionist history. Britain messed up big time with many of its colonies. Sudan, Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, Egypt, South Africa and Nigeria in Africa alone. No country on earth has done more "intervention" that's led to conflict than Britain. India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine are the two largest political/military issues in the world right now and were both the result of British interventionism. Britain even played a bit of a role in the Iranian situation. I understand its popular in Europe right now to accuse the U.S. of imperialism and interventionism. Doing so is being intellectually dishonest because Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, and Italy have done more to get their hands dirty in the last 80 years than any other western country.

 

So don't blame the leaders of African countries just the British, if they hate being together so much then why don't they split? Because they would just have more wars, at least this way they are forced to work together in the good of themselves. FYI Rhodesia and Zimbabwe are the same place. What's wrong with Egypt that Britain made happen, we tryed to stop it. South Africa wasn't Britains fault, it was some religious nutters fault and the fact the Zulu are backward.

I am quite sure Beligum and Italy are not as bad as the US. And the US isn't any better than Britain, France or Germany.

The British didn't intervene in British India or Israel that's why everything happened, so get your facts right. The US has been intervening for 60 years in Israel.

I know we played the same part as the US or USSR. Don't forget Saudi Arabia. By far the biggest mistake the British made when leaving the empire.

If only the US imperialist, you could sort the world out, but your not, your interventionist. But act like and empire. You are weak, because your enemies use your kindness against you. And then other times like Iran just stupid.

 

Rhodesia(North and South) turned into Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Malawi.

Belgium probably has the worst human rights record of all the European countries. That tiny country is responsible for the death of millions in the Congo and other colonies. Read up on the Congo Free State and King Leopold II.

Italy did its fair share in Libya and several other colonies.

Britain definitely plays and important role in Israel and India. Both regions were colonies and both broke out into bloodshed after a nasty transition from colonialism.

France was very brutal in Vietnam as well as Algeria and some other places. Germany also had a few colonies....and then there's that whole WWII thing that killed tens of millions of people.

The U.S. was never really a colonial power. It claimed some territories over seas, mostly pacific islands, and at certain times mistreated them. None of that was ever on the level of its European counterparts who treated many of their territories and their populations as personal fiefdoms without any human rights or consideration to the people.

Your ignorance of colonialism shocks me. Do they not teach this in Europe?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia

The Germans killed far more people in Africa than Belgium, Italy was not that big, killed 3 million or so in Libya and other parts of east Africa. For some reason people forget Spain and Portugal, the Dutch were about the same as the British just smaller. And what about the Ottomans, Indians and Chinese? Just because they were all beaten by the British doesn't mean they didn't do things aswell, the Indians attacked the British in India, people forget that to.

The British didn't want Israel is was a UN mandate, that the UN should and should have enforced, not the British. I refuse Britain taking the blame for Israel, as there was nothing we could have done, apart from went to war with the Jews and Arab states, then what would the UN have said? India was a huge cockup, I am willing to take part of the blame for India, but most of the blame must be with Pakistan and India, and the people who did the killing.

What about the Philippines, we killing the native Americans? I mean the US itself was really an empire.

No they didn't teach me anything about Colonialist, just the slave trade, which I myself have no problem with Britain taking part in.

 

I love how a thread about Canadian heroes has turned into one about the advantages and endorsement of Colonialism.

I wonder if anybody knows how many Canadians have died in the attempt to keep British Colonialism alive? Because I am sure it is an untold number of Scots, Irish, Gurkas, and others.

 

The Scots are British and gained the most from the Empire. I am not endorsing colonialism just defending the British part in it. And the argument is really about how the British left those nation of the empire.

 

Plus the US kill most of the native Americans.

 

Ever hear of British colonists?

 

That was just the east, you went across the rest of the US killing them all.

 

It was British/Spanish colonists that first came to America and spread the diseases that killed millions of Native Americans. This was, in some cases, hundreds of years before the U.S. even came into existence.

 

Oh nonsense! There are mor people of "Indian" descent then ever existed before in history. Over 2.5 in the United States alone. And if you believe that they were all slaughtered, you are watching to many bad movies and listening to revisionist historians.

In reality, most Indians lived peacefully with their neighbors. Sure there were exceptions, but for the most part interactions were fairly peacefull. And attacks, slaughters and massacers occured from both sides.

My great-grandfather was born on a reservation, and never really faced any kind of discrimination for his heritage. Of course, his tribe was considered to be one of the more "civilized" tribes, being part of the Algonquin families and the Council of Three Fires.

Do not believe that the tribes were "all slaughtered". That is plain nonsense, because if you look all through the US, from Idaho and Oregon to California and Georgia, you found them living peacefully with their neighbors.

 

Yes over 30 million 200 years ago, down to 2.5 million. They weren't slaughtered. Hahahaha.