![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
In me news...
- Went to see Des Fraises en Janvier. Very cute. Lulz factor of five. I particularly enjoy the sets at Theatre Francais de Toronto - they're always so bright, open and creatively multi-purpose.
- Going to see Evil Dead the Musical for THIRD TIME. This show is so utterly <3able. The songs are spun from the purest of comedy gold.
- And later, Kudelka's Cinderella. I saw his Nutcracker over the holidays and was sold on him. There's just something fresh and accessible about his choreography.
- The Mirvish Group has announced they're going to put on a production of Medea, starring Seanna McKenna - total must see, as far as I'm concerned.
- AND! This year's season at Stratford includes: Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew.
me=EXPLODING WITH EXCITEMENT.
***
Addicted to Power: Dion's deadly Afghan double-deal shows he'd rather count body bags than combat Tories
The Tories and the Libs believe in war, a mutual conviction cemented last week when Liberal leader Stephane Dion agreed to their pact to extend Canada’s war commitment in Afghanistan until at least 2011.
On the other side altogether, the NDP is a pacifist party that pushes more creative options for conflict resolution than blowing the shit out of people who have different beliefs than your own.
Michael Hollet
NOW Magazine
[Disclaimer: not interested in doing a comprehensive post on the war, just looking at a couple of things that bugged me - the following does not constitute the entirety of my thoughts onyaoi the mission.]
I couldn't disagree more with the characterization of the Conservatives and Liberals as being in love with war. Power? Yes, obviously - we all know this. The Liberals are a brokerage party and Stephen Harper the supposed idealogue is, in office, compromising like his life depends on it. Or like his grasp on power depends on it, which it does. Because in case Michael Hollet failed to notice - Canada has a minority government at the moment. A minority government lead by men who utterly loathe the sight, nay the very thought of one another. The fact that the government is functional at all is thanks to political compromises made by all parties.
I'm tired of rabid idealogues who think that 'compromise' is a dirty word. Guess what assholes, compromise is what democratic politics is all about!
And honestly, I'm incredibly fucking tired of pacifists who characterize non-pacifists as 'war-loving'. It's just the most ridiculous of philosophical tomfoolery. The mission in Afghanistan is not about 'blowing the shit out of people who have different beliefs than your own'. Sorry dude, but on this I'm not going to compromise because you could not be more wrong. The mission is about several things, and none of them have anything to do with a deep-seated desire to kill, maim or blow the shit out of people.
Thing the first -- the Liberals went into the mission with the hopes of rehabilitating their relationship with the Bush government, after Cretien's refusal to play in Iraq. (Although it's important to remember that the Canadian government did offer non-military assistance with that one). Blatantly, it was in our vital national interest to pony up with a solid contribution to a NATO mission.
Thing the second -- after decades of chronic underfunding and relegation to (in their minds) being 'just' peacekeepers, some factions within the armed forces were itching for a chance to prove their mettle and pushed for Afghanistan. There were factions in Parliament and the defense establishment that agreed with the need for Canadians to show their stuff. They wanted the mission for political reasons, and for reasons of professional pride. The willingness to kill and the willingness to soldier for your country, do not equate to a desire to 'blow the shit out of people', or to a sociopathic hatred of one's fellow man. (Though let's not forget that there were factions within the armed forces and Parliament who, from the very beginning, thought that Afghanistan was the wrong mission, and a morally bankrupt mission.)
Thing the third -- the mission enjoyed a lot of popular support until the bodybags started coming home. Even the military aspect of the mission. Yes, that's right. Lot's of ordinary people approve of the use of military force (as long as their kids don't die while applying said force)! There was a sense that reconstruction in Afghanistan was not just the right thing to do, but the only thing to do under the circumstances. The security situation was such that a continued combat role could not be avoided, even after the Taliban was deposed. The polls show that most people didn't have a problem with this. The polls also did not show a desire to 'blow the shit' out of the Afghan people, because 'their' beliefs are different from 'ours'. (Let's also note that Hollet characterizes the Liberal and Conservative parties as excluding Afghans, and I think we can infer, Muslims. Taking this further - can we say that he excludes Islam from Canada? Or perhaps just radical Islam from non-progressive Canada).
imho the current fall from grace has more to do with Harper's abrasive Prime Ministeral railroading of the mission's extension, Iraq, Pakistan, and the complicated political situation in Afghanistan, than a burgeoning moral outrage over the existence of war. There is, I think, a growing moral uncertainty about this conflict, but not about the use of force generally. However, there is, and has been for decades, moral uncertainty about Canadians employing force as a foreign policy instrument. We like to think of ourselves as morally enlightened peace-bringers - keepers of the light of civilization. It's just too bad that we are not, and never have been those things. And most likely? NEVER WILL BE. Please consult Romeo Dallaire on why force may sometimes be necessary, and pure peacekeeping doesn't work these days. The kinds of missions we (and by 'we' I'm thinking very broadly of the West) want to engage in are not situations where true peacekeeping has any hope of succeeding. Somalia, Rwanda, the Balkans, Darfur etc. etc.
The idea that we should get 'Our Troops Out Now' is patently ridiculous to me, considering that NATO is the primary security force in the country. A fairer criticism of the mission would be that the armed forces should play a far more limited role, particularly in terms of reconstruction and humanitarian aid, for which they remain ill-suited.
And one last thing - I don't understand what he's talking about vis. the UN. The UN is already doing exactly as much as it is willing to do. Good luck getting the UNSC to sign on for more.
Ok, *yawn* bed.
- Went to see Des Fraises en Janvier. Very cute. Lulz factor of five. I particularly enjoy the sets at Theatre Francais de Toronto - they're always so bright, open and creatively multi-purpose.
- Going to see Evil Dead the Musical for THIRD TIME. This show is so utterly <3able. The songs are spun from the purest of comedy gold.
- And later, Kudelka's Cinderella. I saw his Nutcracker over the holidays and was sold on him. There's just something fresh and accessible about his choreography.
- The Mirvish Group has announced they're going to put on a production of Medea, starring Seanna McKenna - total must see, as far as I'm concerned.
- AND! This year's season at Stratford includes: Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew.
me=EXPLODING WITH EXCITEMENT.
***
Addicted to Power: Dion's deadly Afghan double-deal shows he'd rather count body bags than combat Tories
The Tories and the Libs believe in war, a mutual conviction cemented last week when Liberal leader Stephane Dion agreed to their pact to extend Canada’s war commitment in Afghanistan until at least 2011.
On the other side altogether, the NDP is a pacifist party that pushes more creative options for conflict resolution than blowing the shit out of people who have different beliefs than your own.
Michael Hollet
NOW Magazine
[Disclaimer: not interested in doing a comprehensive post on the war, just looking at a couple of things that bugged me - the following does not constitute the entirety of my thoughts on
I couldn't disagree more with the characterization of the Conservatives and Liberals as being in love with war. Power? Yes, obviously - we all know this. The Liberals are a brokerage party and Stephen Harper the supposed idealogue is, in office, compromising like his life depends on it. Or like his grasp on power depends on it, which it does. Because in case Michael Hollet failed to notice - Canada has a minority government at the moment. A minority government lead by men who utterly loathe the sight, nay the very thought of one another. The fact that the government is functional at all is thanks to political compromises made by all parties.
I'm tired of rabid idealogues who think that 'compromise' is a dirty word. Guess what assholes, compromise is what democratic politics is all about!
And honestly, I'm incredibly fucking tired of pacifists who characterize non-pacifists as 'war-loving'. It's just the most ridiculous of philosophical tomfoolery. The mission in Afghanistan is not about 'blowing the shit out of people who have different beliefs than your own'. Sorry dude, but on this I'm not going to compromise because you could not be more wrong. The mission is about several things, and none of them have anything to do with a deep-seated desire to kill, maim or blow the shit out of people.
Thing the first -- the Liberals went into the mission with the hopes of rehabilitating their relationship with the Bush government, after Cretien's refusal to play in Iraq. (Although it's important to remember that the Canadian government did offer non-military assistance with that one). Blatantly, it was in our vital national interest to pony up with a solid contribution to a NATO mission.
Thing the second -- after decades of chronic underfunding and relegation to (in their minds) being 'just' peacekeepers, some factions within the armed forces were itching for a chance to prove their mettle and pushed for Afghanistan. There were factions in Parliament and the defense establishment that agreed with the need for Canadians to show their stuff. They wanted the mission for political reasons, and for reasons of professional pride. The willingness to kill and the willingness to soldier for your country, do not equate to a desire to 'blow the shit out of people', or to a sociopathic hatred of one's fellow man. (Though let's not forget that there were factions within the armed forces and Parliament who, from the very beginning, thought that Afghanistan was the wrong mission, and a morally bankrupt mission.)
Thing the third -- the mission enjoyed a lot of popular support until the bodybags started coming home. Even the military aspect of the mission. Yes, that's right. Lot's of ordinary people approve of the use of military force (as long as their kids don't die while applying said force)! There was a sense that reconstruction in Afghanistan was not just the right thing to do, but the only thing to do under the circumstances. The security situation was such that a continued combat role could not be avoided, even after the Taliban was deposed. The polls show that most people didn't have a problem with this. The polls also did not show a desire to 'blow the shit' out of the Afghan people, because 'their' beliefs are different from 'ours'. (Let's also note that Hollet characterizes the Liberal and Conservative parties as excluding Afghans, and I think we can infer, Muslims. Taking this further - can we say that he excludes Islam from Canada? Or perhaps just radical Islam from non-progressive Canada).
imho the current fall from grace has more to do with Harper's abrasive Prime Ministeral railroading of the mission's extension, Iraq, Pakistan, and the complicated political situation in Afghanistan, than a burgeoning moral outrage over the existence of war. There is, I think, a growing moral uncertainty about this conflict, but not about the use of force generally. However, there is, and has been for decades, moral uncertainty about Canadians employing force as a foreign policy instrument. We like to think of ourselves as morally enlightened peace-bringers - keepers of the light of civilization. It's just too bad that we are not, and never have been those things. And most likely? NEVER WILL BE. Please consult Romeo Dallaire on why force may sometimes be necessary, and pure peacekeeping doesn't work these days. The kinds of missions we (and by 'we' I'm thinking very broadly of the West) want to engage in are not situations where true peacekeeping has any hope of succeeding. Somalia, Rwanda, the Balkans, Darfur etc. etc.
The idea that we should get 'Our Troops Out Now' is patently ridiculous to me, considering that NATO is the primary security force in the country. A fairer criticism of the mission would be that the armed forces should play a far more limited role, particularly in terms of reconstruction and humanitarian aid, for which they remain ill-suited.
And one last thing - I don't understand what he's talking about vis. the UN. The UN is already doing exactly as much as it is willing to do. Good luck getting the UNSC to sign on for more.
Ok, *yawn* bed.