The Canadian who stood by King and Kin in 1914 (three years before the Americans could be bothered) and rallied to the Colours to fight German Militarism in Flanders;
The Canadian who stood by King and Kin in 1939 (three years before the Americans could be bothered) and rallied to the Colours in the great stand against Fascism;
The Canadian who stood on the side of smaller nations and rallied to the cause of the United Nations in 1950 to defend Korea from Communist aggression;
The Canadian who consciously stood aside, as their American "friend" fought the wrong war (Vietnam) for the wrong pretext (the fabrications of the Gulf of Tonkin "Incident" ...);
The Canadian who supports the operations agasinst Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but who did not support American adventurism in the interests of Big Oil in Iraq ....
then I am one of those "Good Canadians."
Remember us?
We fight when the cause is right.
We stand aside when other nations impale themselves on the stake of injustice and corruption.
See, I thought Sands' colleague was bemoaning the lack of Canadian support for Iraq. He wanted to know where the "WWI and WWII" Canadians were in the fight against Iraq.
I entirley agree with you, however, that the good Canadians were where we always are, waiting for a just cause before entering a fight.
I think the implication is that Day was a "good Canadian" who, if he had his way, would have joined America in Iraq (sincerely, I mean, because he felt it was a just cause, not out of political expediency).
I think you and I agree Aeneas. I just don't think what you lay out as a "good Canadian" is what Sands' colleague was refering to. I think you and I fall out of their "good Canadians" category right around the line "American adventurism in the interests of Big Oil in Iraq".
But rest assured, lest you think I oppose our just mission in Afghanistan, that I don't need to "remember" you good Canadians. That was me, standing next to you, on all those points you made.
2 comments:
If by a GOOD CANADIAN Sands means:
The Canadian who stood by King and Kin in 1914 (three years before the Americans could be bothered) and rallied to the Colours to fight German Militarism in Flanders;
The Canadian who stood by King and Kin in 1939 (three years before the Americans could be bothered) and rallied to the Colours in the great stand against Fascism;
The Canadian who stood on the side of smaller nations and rallied to the cause of the United Nations in 1950 to defend Korea from Communist aggression;
The Canadian who consciously stood aside, as their American "friend" fought the wrong war (Vietnam) for the wrong pretext (the fabrications of the Gulf of Tonkin "Incident" ...);
The Canadian who supports the operations agasinst Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but who did not support American adventurism in the interests of Big Oil in Iraq ....
then I am one of those "Good Canadians."
Remember us?
We fight when the cause is right.
We stand aside when other nations impale themselves on the stake of injustice and corruption.
See, I thought Sands' colleague was bemoaning the lack of Canadian support for Iraq. He wanted to know where the "WWI and WWII" Canadians were in the fight against Iraq.
I entirley agree with you, however, that the good Canadians were where we always are, waiting for a just cause before entering a fight.
I think the implication is that Day was a "good Canadian" who, if he had his way, would have joined America in Iraq (sincerely, I mean, because he felt it was a just cause, not out of political expediency).
I think you and I agree Aeneas. I just don't think what you lay out as a "good Canadian" is what Sands' colleague was refering to. I think you and I fall out of their "good Canadians" category right around the line "American adventurism in the interests of Big Oil in Iraq".
But rest assured, lest you think I oppose our just mission in Afghanistan, that I don't need to "remember" you good Canadians. That was me, standing next to you, on all those points you made.
Post a Comment