Like much of the outcry around the Liberals use of military in their attack ads Mackenzie came out in defense of Harper. But he also defended the war monger apologist Liberal Leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff.(Ignatieff for Canada)
In a letter to the editor in the Toronto Star Mackenzie lies about the casualties in Iraq in order to justify the war. Not unlike that other war monger George W. Bush.
Several letter writers to the Star pointed out that his figures were as far off as King George's.
It's becoming increasingly frustrating to witness the gloating that too many Canadians are enjoying as a result of our non-official participation in the war and ongoing crisis in Iraq. In a less than complimentary association with Winston Churchill — at least for Churchill — our recently departed prime minister Jean Chrétien has even referred to his belated decision not to participate in the war as his, "finest hour."Support for the war's objectives has emerged in the current election campaign as a misguided weapon to unfairly defame such disparate candidates as Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.
Since the allied invasion in March of 2003 almost three years ago, 30,000 Iraqis have perished as a result of the war.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We have lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.
More Iraqis died after US invasion
Canada's position has been justified
The Lancet reported in 2004 that over 100,000 Iraqis died after the American occupation based on a study done by John Hopkins University Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Since War
And these are regularly available to viewers of Lou Dobbs on CNN. So why does Mackenzie use these numbers, well to justify the American occupation of course. Also see; Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq
In attempting to defend the U.S. invasion and to denounce Canada's policy of not supporting the war, the quizzling Lewis does disservice to our military, and to Canadian society. War is always the last option, as any military leader worth their salt will tell you. It is diplomacy by other means, as Clausewitz said. And in the case of Iraq that diplomacy, the UN weapons inspections, was pre-empted by the US in their haste to march on Iraq, which was their intention all along even before invading Afghanistan.
Lewis has been out of the military so long, and a wannabe politico that he forgets whose lives are being put on the line in War. He is now the very essence of an armchair general. A real general would never have sent soldiers into Iraq based on the information failures that the US and Britan used to justify their invasion.
Now compare Lewis with his British Counterparts.
Impeach Blair on Iraq, says generalTags
· PM misled public, says UN Bosnia commander
· Invasion 'a blunder of enormous significance'
A former general has called for impeachment proceedings against Tony Blair, accusing the prime minister of misleading parliament and the public over the invasion of Iraq.General Sir Michael Rose, commander of UN forces in Bosnia in 1994, writes in today's Guardian: "The impeachment of Mr Blair is now something I believe must happen if we are to rekindle interest in the democratic process in this country once again". Britain was led into war on false pretences, he says. "It was a war that was to unleash untold suffering on the Iraqi people and cause grave damage to the west's prospects in the wider war against global terror."
General Sir Michael Walker, chief of defence staff, has said in public only that British military presence in Iraq was a "politically-charged issue" which has affected recruitment since people saw the armed forces as "guilty by association" with Mr Blair's decision to invade the country.
General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the army, has criticised US tactics in Iraq. British commanders were told by Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff at the time of the invasion, to deal with Iraqi officers and Ba'athists to help maintain law and order. That order was rescinded in May 2003 on the instructions of US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Enough of his excuses: Blair must be impeached over Iraq
The only way parliament can regain the trust of disaffected voters is to admit that it was wrong to support the war
Michael Rose
Tuesday January 10, 2006
The Guardian
Wars are won when the people, government and army work together for a common cause in which they genuinely believe. Whereas the people may be initially uncertain about military intervention, politicians will often be the strongest advocates - blinded by the imperatives of their political views. It will invariably be military commanders who are most cautious about using force - for they understand better than most the consequences of engaging in war.Although in a true democracy they must remain subordinate to their political masters, they have a clear responsibility to point out when political strategies are flawed or inadequately resourced. Since they might also have to ask their soldiers to sacrifice their lives, they must be assured that a war is just, legal and the last resort available. Yet three years ago this country was somehow led by the prime minister into war in Iraq where few, if any, of these requirements were met.
Most importantly a clear justification for the war in Iraq was never sufficiently made by Tony Blair - for the intelligence he presented was always embarrassingly patchy and inconsistent. What is more, his unequivocal statement to the House of Commons that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used within 45 minutes was made without being properly validated - for it was decided in Washington and London to launch the invasion of Iraq early, on the basis of the flimsy evidence available. This was done without asking the UN weapons inspectors, who were actually on the ground in Iraq, to investigate this allegation. Ultimately, as the inspectors suspected and as we now all know, it turned out that there were no such weapons. Britain had been led into war on false pretences. It was a war that was to unleash untold suffering on the Iraqi people and cause grave damage to the west's prospects in the wider war against global terror.
Canada
Federal Election
Iraq
Michael Rose
Politics
Blair
USA
war
anti-war
Bush
UK
Conservatives
Liberals
No comments:
Post a Comment