Sunday, May 27, 2007

On a Soldier's Right to Choose

I am growing weary of Jack Layton's predictable rhetoric every time a Canadian soldier is killed in Afghanistan.

Following the sad death of Cpl. Matthew McCully, who was killed by a roadside bomb on Friday, Layton used the occasion to say that "he hopes Canadians will ask the government to take a different approach to combat in Afghanistan."

"Our soldiers will risk their lives, according to what we request them to do. We saw yesterday the profound reality of that commitment," he said during an interview with the Canadian Press in Toronto.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any soldiers being forced or conscripted here. For the most part, they are very committed, and believe in the mission. And the Afghans seem to be very grateful for Canadian assistance in trying to rid their country of the Taliban and help establish safety and democracy.


McCully's sister, Shannon McGrady, said the 25-year-old was a role model who acted a father figure to his younger siblings while growing up in Orangeville, Ont. He was also a soldier who loved his job, she said.

"I thought he was crazy. He loved the army," McGrady said. "If he was asked to do this all over again, he wouldn't change it."

And from his Dad:
"He was a very caring guy who just loved life," his father, Ron McCully, told CBC Newsworld from his home in Prince George, B.C., on Saturday. "His passion was the army. He lived it. He believed in what he was doing."



Perhaps Jack Layton's problem is that the concepts of integrity, commitment and freedom are foreign to him.

We often rail against that which we don't understand.


* * * *

Update: Jack has very kindly posted this entry at Jack's Newswatch - Daily Blogger feature.

Very interesting post here by Jarrett. I only had one issue with what he had written, which I mentioned in the comment section.

7 comments:

Surecure said...

Considering his love for labour unions and his belief that unions should act together according the majority position of said union, I wonder how Jack would react if a poll was taken amongst soldiers asking them whether they felt that they should be in Afghanistan. If the majority of soldiers wanted to be there and felt it was a good job they were undertaking, I imagine Jack would be rather embarrased to have to speak out against their work the way he is supposedly standing up for them here.

EL said...

Jack will never get it. Jack's socialist utopia is based on everyone having no values and striving to be as mediocre as they can. Taliban Jack's world is one of everthing goes and no one is at fault or has to take responsibility. People who have values and pursue their passions with a gusto have no place in Taliban Jack's perception of reality.

jeff davidson said...

predictable conservative rhetoric. if you dare question the length, cost or scope of canadian efforts in afghansitan, you're a pinko, leftie,taliban sympathizer, freedom hater, blah blah blah.

critical thinking has never been a strength for conservatives. with a minority tory conservative govt in power, it's enough to sit back and happily swallow whatever crap the giant arse in ottawa squeezes out.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

predictable conservative rhetoric. if you dare question the length, cost or scope of canadian efforts in afghansitan, you're a pinko, leftie,taliban sympathizer, freedom hater

I think Jack has every right to discuss and debate the financial cost of the mission, since it is funded by taxpayers. However, he shouldn't use the death of a soldier as a springboard for his rhetoric.

critical thinking has never been a strength for conservatives

No gross generalization there.

You lose the argument.

Anonymous said...

"predictable conservative rhetoric. if you dare question the length, cost or scope of canadian efforts in afghansitan, you're a pinko, leftie,taliban sympathizer, freedom hater, blah blah blah"

Actually Jeff, what bothers me is lefties changing their stance once in opposition. Here's a wonderful speech by a Liberal cabinet minister during a visit in Sepember 2005.

Read it, especially the part about staying several years if needed to meet the objective. 2005 plus several years, you do the math. What you fail to grasp is this was the Liberal position until the 2006 loss of power.During their time in opposition, the Conservative's also showed support for the mission. The Liberal's reversal on Afghanistan? Perhaps its because Liberal MP's, like John Godfrey, publicly pointed out that if Iggy won the leadership it would remove Afghanistan as a "wedge" issue, which is what they are doing now. Mike Duffy said it best last week. The NDP want our troops out of Afghanistan, the Conservatives want us in Afghanistan, and the Liberal's want us out and in. So read on:


"Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan visited Canadian troops in Afghanistan Wednesday.
Speaking to reporters in Kandahar, she said Canadians may have to stay in Afghanistan for several years to help stabilize the country, because it's important to stay long enough to achieve objectives.

After her three-hour visit, McLellan headed to Pakistan for a three-day visit and a meeting with the country's prime minister, Shaukat Aziz.

McLellan says she will press Aziz to do more to crack down on insurgents crossing the border into Afghanistan.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier has previously warned that Canadians should realize the mission Canada's military is undertaking in Afghanistan is a dangerous one, which could lead to combat and casualties.

As many as 1,250 Canadian soldiers are scheduled to be serving in Afganistan by February 2006.


(paulsstuff)

Gabby in QC said...

Congratulations, Anonymous (a.k.a paulsstuff ?), for ferretting out that speech by then Minister McLellan.

However, it's an unfortunate reality that no amount of factual information will sway the mindset of some Liberal supporters - or should I say anti-Conservative zealots - particularly potty-mouthed ones.

Brian in Calgary said...

... no amount of factual information will sway the mindset of some Liberal supporters ...

You're absolutely right, gabby. As you infer, there are a probably large number of fair-minded, mature Liberals who do believe in exchanging views in a civil manner, and agreeing to disagree if/when necessary. They have to be particularly embarrassed by, as you call it, potty-mouthed commenters like jeff (as I am by his counterparts from the right).