...and fails.
Further to my June 18th posting, the Catty Catnip makes so many indefensible and illogical statements in her post, and again in her little snit with Arabian Knight, I simply cannot resist returning to an examination of her nonsense.
First of all, the entry on her blog, which prompted Arabian Knight’s pointed attack, links to a Globe & Mail article summarizing statements made during a debate by Liberal leadership contender, Michael Ignatieff. Among statements attributed to Ignatieff in the article is this:
“…to prevent human-rights disasters, the world needs more muscular peacekeeping missions that are prepared to return fire with fire, rather than the traditional blue-beret peacekeepers.”
According to the article, Ignatieff now enjoys the support of Romeo Dallaire, whose experience in Rwanda certainly supports Ignatieff’s position. Due to restrictions in the peacekeeping mandate given Dallaire, he could do nothing but watch helplessly while one of the most serious instances of genocide in recent history unfolded in front of him, while his pleas to other countries to send in troops to stop the genocide went unheeded. In Ignatieff’s words:
“For weeks, brave Canadians watched without being able to intervene while 800,000 people were massacred. Dallaire sought to stop this massacre. But he lacked the equipment, weapons, and rules of engagement needed to act. The Liberal government, all Canadians even, promised it would never happen again. We are in Afghanistan to keep that promise.”
To this, Catty Catnip responds:
"Now that Romeo Dallaire is backing Ignatieff, the candidate is using Dallaire's situation in Rwanda to offer a false equivalency with what's happening in Afghanistan." (Emphasis mine.)
If I am to understand the Catty Catnip here, apparently waiting for genocide to occur before we react is the appropriate way to proceed. What was going on in Taleban-ruled Afghanistan doesn’t merit intervention apparently, at least not on the grounds of “prevention”. If Catty Catnip’s “philosophy” had prevailed, the Taleban, one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes to be seen on the planet in many, many years, would still be in power and that, of course, would be better than anything that Bush has done.
She further claims:
"Canadian troops are in Afghanistan because Canadians were killed on 9/11 and the Liberal government decided to join the coalition to wage war on Afghanistan because the Taliban supported al Quaeda (sic)."
Apparently, in Catty Catnip’s world, Canada’s reaction to 9/11 was based on the following premises: a) that it was not an act of genocide, b) the act merited a response from Canada only because
Canadians were killed, not because of the nearly 3,000 others of various nationalities who met their end that day. I can only presume that had Canadians not been killed on 9/11, she would think there is no need for Canada to be in Afghanistan.
The Catty Catnip continues:
"The mission (in Afghanistan) has changed. It is now being handed over to NATO because the US wants to pull out its troops - refusing to clean up the mess they've made of the place by supporting warlords and ignoring the thriving poppy cultivation in order to pursue the bigger mess they've caused in Iraq." (Emphasis mine.)
Here she is just plain wrong. One wonders if the Catty Catnip even knows what NATO is, so, for her enlightenment, I will delve into that a bit later.
So, yes, NATO
has been involved in Afghanistan
since 2003, but you'll be sorry to learn, Catty Catnip, that Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced Canada’s commitment to the cause even earlier than that, in fact,
less than a month after 9/11. This link is a leftwing website, BTW. I am sure she would be seriously conflicted, should she have to refute it in order to maintain her airheaded stance.
The fact that Canada has belonged to NATO since its inception, could very well have also been one of the prime reasons Chretien cast our lot with all the other nations which came to America’s defense, although in Chretien’s own words, Canada’s motivation
was security and economics. In other words, we are there for our own protection. Our participation on the ground in Afghanistan was most certainly due to our membership in the United Nations, regardless of who happens to be the occupant of the Oval Office. In short, Canada went to Afghanistan for reasons that go well beyond just the fact that Canadians were killed on 9/11.
To review the history of the current international intervention in Afghanistan, perhaps the Catty Catnip should read up a bit on the Bonn Conference held in December of 2001, the outcome of which was an agreement known as the
Agreement on Provisional Arrangements in Afghanistan Pending the Re-establishment of Permanent Government Institutions. The Conference was hosted by the German government, sponsored by the United Nations and its participants were Afghans. Item 3 of Annex I of this Agreement reads as follows:
“Conscious that some time may be required for the new Afghan security and armed forces to be fully constituted and functioning,
the participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan request the United Nations Security Council to consider authorizing the early deployment to Afghanistan of a United Nations mandated force. This force will assist in the maintenance of security for Kabul and its surrounding areas. Such a force could, as appropriate, be progressively expanded to other urban centres and other areas.” (Emphasis mine.)
In response to that request the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was organized. Our participation in Afghanistan is solidly within our longstanding tradition of supporting justice and humanitarian relief overseas. Shall we presume Catty Catnip has a problem with that tradition? Moreover, should she dare to read this link, she will see that rotations of command have been integral to the mission from the very beginning.
For her overdue enlightenment, then, I present the essence of NATO’s purpose, taken from the organization’s
website (click on the “What is NATO?” button):
“NATO is committed to defending its member states against aggression or the threat of aggression and the principle that an attack against one or several members would be considered as an attack against all.”
It’s an alliance, Catty Catnip. Several European countries, Canada and the United States are committed to protecting each other, which, in case you can’t connect the dots, includes even your sorry ass. Awwwwe. President Bush loves you. Isn’t that sweet.
Not only does the Catty Catnip get the NATO angle completely wrong, her delusional rant about the American pullout from the south totally mischaracterizes what is actually happening. The expanded role now being implement by NATO was planned at a meeting back in early
December, 2005 and NATO, along with Russia, are
handling the narcotics issue, a partnership also decided at that meeting. Not only that, but it is merely another of the six month rotational patterns which were put in place right at the beginning.
Apparently the Catty Catnip believes we should all sit back and whine, while we let the United States handle everything. After all, we have to keep a low profile so that all the evil in the world can be pinned on the hated Americans, don’t we, Catnip. I, for one, am proud that Canada has once again found its place in the world and is now
pulling its own weight.
Not only that, but the fact is, the US had already
“hiked its troop levels in Afghanistan in recent months from 18,000 to 23,000.” Allied nations of Britain, Canada and the Netherlands collectively will be increasing their troops by about 8,000, at which time US forces will be reduced. To summarize what actually happened, NATO simply took over administration of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in 2003, and the supposed "abandonment" about which the Catty Catnip blathers is simply another instance of rotation. This was far from a sharp departure from what was already in place.
This is hardly cause for such mind boggling BS, Catnip, but I’ve come to expect that from you, so ……. yawn.
But that’s not enough. Catty Catnip, in her bizarre rebuke of Arabian Knight, declares the following:
"Peace-building? Let's call it what it is: nation-building. And that is right out of the neocon playbook."
Yes, Catty Catnip, it is nation building, and if you dare to read the link about the Bonn Conference, that is exactly what the Afghans assembled there requested of the international community: Nation Building. Who would have guessed that Afghans and the United Nations were neocons? What a surprise!!!
The Catty one continues to display her incapacity in her little spat with Arabian Knight when she says this:
"And if Ignatieff is so concerned with massacres and peacekeeping, perhaps he'd like to explain to Canadians how our troops, who are now so stretched, will be able to respond to Darfur - where people are being eliminated on a broad scale."
Well, dingbat, it was the Liberals who decimated our armed forces. The Conservatives are now committed to rebuilding them and you are philosophically opposed to all things Conservative (both upper and lower case "c"). Remember?
When finally backed into a corner by the Knight in Shining Armor, the Catty Catnip then angrily retorts with the tired old peacenik response used by everyone of her ilk, once having run out of steam:
”I'm antiwar. Period. And if Canadian troops are going to be used, they should be used for peacekeeping. Period. Clear enough for you?”
Yes, Catty Catnip. That’s very clear. That’s exactly what they were sent to do in Rwanda, but look what happened there. Peacekeeping requires that there first be peace to keep. In the absence of peace, other measures must be taken to create peace and that frequently means war. A bunch of blue bereted Canadians flashing peace signs is not enough to stop atrocities, whether it’s in Rwanda, Afghanistan or Darfur. Romeo Dallaire’s pleas to the United Nations were for the kind of support that can only be considered armed intervention, which is another way of saying war, Catty Catnip. Michael Ignatieff is right on the mark, and you are still an idiot. Period! Clear enough for you?
Labels: Afghanistan, Bonn Conference, genocide, Ignatieff, ISAF
