A sensible view of demands to retaliate against Iran

Most of Walt's readers don't read (or haven't heard of!) the National Post. Founded by Conrad Black, sometime Canadian (when he wasn't busy being Lord Black of Cross Harbour) and arch-conservative, the Post (and its group of Sun newspapers) is the only media outlet in Canuckistan which takes a reasonably balanced view of the world. 

One of the Post group's premier columnists is Kelly McParland, who wrote an excellent piece today on the stupidity of the Excited States of America's entering yet another war in the Middle East. Mr McParland argues that the Republicans who are pressing Crooked Joe Biden to hit back at Iran for the drone strike that killed three US soldiers [How come all three were black? Ed.?] are all but insane to advocate such folly. 

Worse, they are urging a course of action which President Trump has rightly and repeated condemned. I've emphasized Mr Trump's words in Mr McParland's column, which I'm reposting, in a slightly shortened version. (To read the entire column, click on the headline link.) 

Biden pressed to start another 'stupid' war

If you disliked Donald Trump but were determined to say something positive about him, you could always cite his consistent criticism of “stupid” American wars. It’s a position that hits home with a lot of people — Democrats as much as Republicans — who have lost loved ones in distant countries over matters a lot of Americans don’t view as their responsibility to solve.

Trump has been nothing if not consistent on the point.While campaigning for re-election in 2020 he boasted of his efforts to reduce U.S. military deployments overseas and pledged to "keep America out of these endless, ridiculous, stupid, foreign wars in countries that you’ve never even heard of."

He regularly assails the Biden administration over its defence performance — particularly the bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan, insists he could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours as president, and says the White House "has brought us to the brink of World War III."

His admirers like to cite his record of having "no wars" during his four years in office — a claim with some merit compared to recent predecessors. One 2017 study concluded that crucial Trump victories in three key states in the 2016 election may have been helped by concern over high casualty rates under previous administrations. All of which makes it a bit odd that top Republicans are loudly demanding the sort of retaliatory action against Iran that history suggests would be an excellent way to start yet another ill-fated U.S. military entanglement....

"The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East. Anything less will confirm Joe Biden as a coward unworthy of being commander-in-chief," said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who is backing Trump’s renewed bid for the presidency. 

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell charged in a statement that "the entire world now watches for signs that the President is finally prepared to exercise American strength to compel Iran to change its behaviour."

He said U.S. enemies would continue to be emboldened "until the United States imposes serious, crippling costs — not only on front-line terrorist proxies, but on their Iranian sponsors who wear American blood as a badge of honour." Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn both fired off tweets insisting the White House aim hits directly at Iran, while Trump himself used the attack to criticize Biden for his "weakness." 

Given the Middle East’s status as one of the world’s most relentlessly volatile regions, Iran’s success in spreading its tentacles throughout the region, the tensions already centred on the bitter confrontation in Israel and Gaza and the growing boldness of Iran’s determination to taunt western powers, it’s difficult to see how yet another one-off U.S. retaliatory effort could accomplish anything other than increasing the danger the region’s many festering hot spots erupt into one giant conflagration.

In other words, just the sort of "endless", "stupid" foreign war that Trump has so often derided, and just the sort of quagmire the mullahs in Tehran would love to see sweep over the region. Chaos and conflict work to the benefit of regimes like Syria’s and Iran’s, helping focus hatred on foreign powers rather than the brutality and repression they inflict on their own people. 

A few quick missile strikes on known Iranian dependents in Syria or Iraq, or even Iran itself, might raise cheers for a day or two in Washington but would be yet another opportunity for Tehran to recruit the sort of fanatics who think spilling more blood is a good reaction to all the blood that’s already been spilled. Jumping impulsively into doomed conflicts is indeed a trait that has brought the U.S. tragedy and humiliation time and again. 

Vietnam was a quagmire. It was far harder for the Obama and Trump administrations to get US troops out of Iraq than it was for the Bush White House to get them in. The US disaster in Benghazi may not have killed Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign all on its own but was certainly a nail Republicans hammered at enthusiastically. And Joe Biden’s rush to flee Afghanistan was a fiasco from which he’s never managed to recover.

It’s easy to understand the temptation to use Washington’s immense military might to strike back at a country that works so hard to bring despair to so many people. But in pressing Biden to risk lives for the sake of a quick headline or two, Republican leaders are demanding a response that’s diametrically opposed to what their favoured candidate has been preaching since the day he entered politics. 

Would they be making the same demand if it was a Republican sitting in the White House, forced to confront the prospects of setting off a regional explosion, complete with body bags being shipped back home? If so it would be evidence they’d learned no more about the dangers of stumbling into foreign wars than the presidents who sent U.S. sons and daughters into Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and came to regret it.

Kelly McParland: The world thinks Justin Trudeau blew it

No, the National Post's Kelly McParland is not referring to the organ of George Soros or Gerald Butts. (Yes, Doonesbury fans, there really is a "Mr Butts" lurking behind the scenes in Canuckistan.) He's talking about Mr Socks' mismanagement of the "crisis" brought on by the Freedom Convoy in which 1000s of Canadian truckers and their supporters. 

In his latest column, posted today, Mr McParland writes: Some of the world's most respected newspapers have denounced the prime minister's actions as a needless abuse of power. Each of them thinks Justin Trudeau blew it. 

Best quote: "The belief that Liberalism is Canada and any criticism is unCanadian and unacceptable may be the defining quality of this government." Sounds kind of like the Dumbocratic Gang of Four (Brandon-Harris-Pelosi-Schumer), doesn't it?

While Walt recovers from a little visit to the OR, we invite you to read the column, which is much better than anything Walt could have written. Ed.

Further reading: "Justin Trudeau's crackdown on protests could make things worse" The Economist, 19/2/22. (This is the leader referred to in Mr McParland's column.)

VIDEO: "The Catastrophe of Canada": Jordan Peterson & Rex Murphy

On Saturday, while cops imported from Toronto, Vancouver and elsewhere in Canada were attacking peaceful protesters in Ottawa, Canada, Dr Jordan Peterson got together with fellow-Canuck author and pundit Rex Murphy to discuss the most recent anti-democratic actions of the Liberal government of Prime Minister Blackie McBlackface.

Those actions included the arresting of protestors -- see footnote -- and the freezing (read: seizure or theft) of the bank accounts of Canadians suspected of participating in the protests. I gave an example of the latter in my introduction to Michael Matt's latest video, posted yeseterday.

The most significant part of this hour-long interview, IMHO, is the discussion (and proof) of collusion between Trudeau's misgovernment and Canada's controlled media. Make no mistake, Canada's "legacy media" are (with the possible exception of the National Post) bought and owned by the Liberals. 

Not just the CBC -- funded by taxpayers' money -- but the privately owned media, notably the Toronto (Red) Star, which Dr Peterson says has just asked for a $60,000,000 handout from Trudeau because it (gasp!) lost money last year! See "CBC bias on full display in coverage of Freedom Convoy, Coastal GasLink protests" by Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post, 19/2/22. 

And then there's Canadian banks, heretofore regarded as safe and sensible custodians of your money -- "you" including not just Canucks but foreigners who entrust their funds to all banks regulated and controlled by the Ottawa government. 

When ordered by the government to freeze the accounts of the supporters of the Freedom Convoy (and anyone else the Liberals don't like), the Canadian banks caved without a whimper, without any regard to Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which supposedly protects Canadians from unreasonable search and seizure. Shameful! 

Thanks to Agent 6 for sending us the link to this must-read video.

   

Footnote: Ontario's Special Investigations Unit, which is charged with finding police not responsible for any injuries or deaths resulting from "interactions with police", is looking into the "incident" in which a Toronto mounted policeman -- well, his horse, at least -- trampled on an old lady with a walker. You can see it in Michael Matt's video, posted here yesterday. 

They are also "investigating" reports that Vancouver cops, in Ottawa for the occasion, fired "non-lethal rounds" and pepper spray at the peaceful demonstrators. Walt predicts that the cops involved will be found to be acting in self-defence against "white supremacists waving Confederate flags and shouting hateful things." [Like "Fuck Trudeau!"? Ed.] Lifetime pct .982. 

See "Police Confirm Probe into Alleged Officer Texts Celebrating Trampling Protesters", Breitbart News, 21/2/22. What else did anyone expect? That's what cops do. Bullies with badges.

Further reading: "Complacent Canada is changing — and our politicians haven't a clue", by Post Media's Kelly McParland, 20/2/22.

Further (very funny?) reading: "Canadian ATMs Now Asking Your Political Views Before Allowing You To Withdraw Money", from the Babylon Bee (surprised?), 18/2/22. Lede: Under orders from the Supreme Chancellor of the People's Republic of Canada Justin Trudeau, all bank ATMs across the provinces will now require anyone attempting to withdraw money from their accounts to take a small quiz on their political beliefs. 

Lamestream media moan about backlash against Muslim "refugees"

Walt is wetting himself (almost) reading the sob stories in the liberal lamestream media about how the racist and Islamophobic Europeans are turning against the waves of "refugees" and asylum-seekers washing up on their shores. Worst of all are the Canadian meeja, led by the state-owned CBC, who smugly assure their audience that the "failure of human compassion" would never happen in Canada. Canadians, they say, overwhelmingly support the welcoming of 1000s of aliens who won't integrate into their supposedly multicultural society any better than will those who the Europeans now seek to get rid of.

Typical of the tripe that's being fed to gullible Canucks is "The refugee crisis is shredding the cords that bind Europe", commentary by Kelly McParland in the so-called National Post. In the FB comments section following the piece, one perceptive reader calls Mr. McParland an "ethno-masochist, multiculturalist shill". [Don't you wish you'd thought up "ethno-masochist"? Ed.]

Be that as it certainly is, I'm going to repost a large chunk of the blog, because, even if the slant is wrong, Mr. McParland has the facts right. The Europeans don't want any more refugees. In fact, they'd like to send those who have already snuck into their countries back where they came from. That's a fact!

In Europe [Mr. McParland writes], one flood is running into another. The tide of refugees pouring across the Mediterranean in search of a new life is meeting a counter-flow of antagonism from countries increasingly unprepared to grant them their wish.

Dishearteningly, staunch resistance is now coming from some of the wealthiest countries. A Dutch proposal would have Syrians landing in Greece put on a boat straight back to Turkey. Denmark has passed a law allowing it to collect valuables from refugee claimants to pay their costs. Sweden’s Interior Minister said this week some 80,000 asylum-seekers -– about half the total -– could be deported if Stockholm can find enough planes for them. Not to be outdone, Finland revealed it expects to reject 65% of asylum applicants....

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron this week dismissed refugees gathered in France as "a bunch of migrants" and rejected any suggestion they should be allowed into Britain.... The EU government in Brussels, meanwhile, has taken to blaming Greece –- easily it’s [sic] weakest member -– for failing to keep the tide from spreading beyond its borders.... Brussels is now threatening to impose border controls if Athens can’t find a way to save the other 27 member countries from being afflicted with the migrants.

The most dramatic shift remains in Germany, however, where there is a very real chance the coalition government of Chancellor Angela Merkel could unravel.... Merkel is scrambling desperately to convince other European powers they must act together if the EU is to survive. A poll released Friday found 40% of Germans feel Merkel should resign over her handling of the situation. She was able to hold her government together this week only by agreeing to new restrictions demanded by her two main allies, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, and Bavarian Premier Horst Seehofer.

Seehofer in particular has pressured Berlin to tighten the liberal policies championed by Merkel, who argues that Germany has a historical responsibility to aid as many asylum-seekers as possible. He wants a cap on the number Germany will accept, and an expanded list of "safe" countries from which applicants will be rejected.

Critics complain that thousands of people from North Africa have sought to take advantage of the chaos to claim refugee status in wealthier European countries. Norway said recently it would send home thousands of Russians who have crossed into the country by bicycle after spotting a loophole in immigration laws.

Merkel has shown herself to be among the most adroit leaders in the western world. But after more than a decade at the top of the European pole, the ground beneath her may be collapsing. It could swallow her, as well as Europe as a union. Built to avoid war, it could fail over the limits of human compassion.

On this side of the water (Walt speaking now), Canada's Liberal government keeps saying it will admit 25,000 "refugees" by the end of February, and as many as 50,000 by the end of 2016, whether Canadians like it or not, and whether the migrants want come of not. See "Surprise! Syrian refugees welcomed by Canada want to go home", WWW 25/1/16.

South of the world's longest undefended border, Barack Hussein Obama thinks the Paranoid States of America should be able to accommodate a mere 10,000 of the tired, wretched, huddles masses. His likely success, Donald Trump, thinks that's 10,000 too many, and numerous public opinion polls suggest many more Americans agree with the Donald than with the Prez.

Assuming the USA effectively slams the door on the "refugees", that would seem to leave Canadians as the only ones foolish enough to let their deluded liberal elites (Hello, Kelly McParland!) lead them, lemming-like, over the cliff to societal suicide.