|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-10 20:54:53
There have been many instances where Canada has been called upon to provide military support where needed. Canadian troops have always shone through with courage and tenacity. The key factor, however, was not training nor equipment. It lies within the heart of every Canadian, and indeed every person, to fight for what they believe in. Canadians have always done so valiantly. In this instance, however, Canadians on a whole are skeptical of the motives of the US/UK and are understandably reluctant to fully commit to what could be considered another 'flagrant violation of international law' by the US. It seems that Canada is being given a choice between 'the lesser of two evils' when we don't want to support any evil. Since the US has recently defied UN directives and resolutions and invaded soveriegn nations with their sole benefit in mind, (Panama) should the world consider invading the US to topple it's leadership? What parameters have been set in the world regarding the use of military force to topple governments? Surely the US and Israel would be near the top of countries due for some changes. China, of course, should be #1, but it's cheap labour and lack of human rights serves the US economy very very well.
Canadians will fight like lions, but not if they are led by donkeys.(An alteration of a quote by Erwin Rommel to British troops in North Africa)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: FedUpCanadian
Date: 2003-02-11 02:04:20
So the best action is inaction... unless that action that is really an inaction is actioned to stablize the unstable where the inaction that is now an action is helping keep towheaded tots cold and hungry?
Where did Canada go so wrong that it cannot take a simple stand in helping to end the reign of an evil dictator? Maybe it was Trudeau bombing around gay old Montreal in a German Kaiser helmet while his peer group was over ending the Nazi menace.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-12 19:10:53
Where did Canada go wrong, you ask? The day we started emulating the United States. The simple definition of 'evil dictator' has become muddied and unclear because so many of them turn out to be on the US payroll. I constantly, (perhaps ad nauseam) refer to the invasion of Panama to prove this point. The US media tried to paint Manuel Noriega as an 'evil dictator', involved in running drugs and oppressing his people. They made the case to the American public to garner support for the invasion of Panama to end his tyranny. As it turned out, Noriega was paid by the US Army for a period of over 30 years, and paid by the CIA for 15. He was 'Our Man in Panama' and was only invaded and deposed so the US could abrogate the treaty signed by Truillo and Carter in 1977 turning over control of the Panama Canal to Panama in 1999. Will we find out in a few years that Saddam Hussein was also paid by the US to do exactly what he was told? Skepticism of US intentions and involvement grows everyday, and not without proof and documentation of their misdeeds. The US has to be held accountable for their own 'evil' actions, and perhaps they should be considered as a prime target by NATO, The EU, and the UN security council.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-11 19:04:23
I agree 100% with your first few sentences, however, I question the validity of the rest of the statement. I know people inside the military, and every single one I have talked to has said that they would be willing to fight in Iraq without hesitation. They acknowledge the threat, and understand what inaction brings.
If the US does violate the UN, then why hasn't any resolution been brought before the security council? Are you questioning the ability of the UN to uphold its own laws? Might I point out that the war in Kosovo (which Canada was apart of) was not conducted through the UN, they were opposed to it. It was through NATO. The UN is, and almost always has been far too hesitant to do what they are supposed to do: uphold int'l peace and stability. This current crisis is no different.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-11 22:07:06
I must agree that the UN is feeble. The problem lies in the fact thatit must rely on member states to agree to lend it's arms against transgressions, when some of it's member states are guilty of transgressions. If the UN was to become 'sherrif of earth' it would require authority over the respective militaries of all of it's member nations when decreed so by resolution. There would be many member nations including the US, invaded by the representatives of International Law. If we start with Iraq, whom should make the list of who is next?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-14 19:43:01
The US has in the past been found to be in 'flagrant violation of international law', it never gets reported in the western media, though. Besides, the US has the world's largest military and supports other countries, such as Israel, when they (repeatedly) violate UN resolutions.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-16 17:11:29
I agree that Canadians have a tradition of being valiant when they believe in a cause.
However, with regard to WWII, you should also recall that Canada had serious problems convincing its own people to truly commit to the war effort even after Germany invaded its neighbours and even after the fall of France.
I also believe any future conflict that involves the US will not be like what you seem to describe. It is no longer enough to have spirit and resolve to be an effective defender or combatant.
IMO, modern technology and tactics require very sophisticated training, experience and investment in resources. Without them we would be relegated to non-strategic roles. Once a nation neglects to retain a core set of military expertise invested in its people then it will take quite some time and (tragic) experiences to relearn those lessons lost. A sovereign nation cannot just buy military capability, it must know how to use it and that is only found in experienced and well-trained people who have daily access to the tools.
IMO, we should not expect Canada to suddenly become a capable nation should the world quickly become more dangerous. This country has for years discarded its role as enforcer. Realistically, we may have some special units that retain adequate capability but our armed forces on the whole is very inadequate and will remain so for some time even with a change in policy.
As for choosing between "evils" I think you bring out a valid point. Was it "evil" for the UN to stand around and watch thousands slaughtered on a daily basis for months and months in Bosnia? Was the US evil to intervene? Were the Bosnians not primarily Muslim victims? What about Rwanda? Just what did the UN do about Rwanda? What about Somalia? What about Kosovo? Weren't they Muslims too? Wasn't that evil? Now let's come back to Panama and Granada, were those entirely missions of mercy or were they "evil"?
I think what may become apparent is that there will always be different views on a given controversy. It's grey. The bigger the stakes and the more parties that are involved, then the "louder the shouting" becomes. If a controversy affects a nation then it must take a more proactive role and accept the inevitability that it cannot remain on the fence. It should also recognize that the world is not a "fair" arena and that nations sometimes play "dirty politics" with one another. This sort of "cheating" behaviour is well-documented in research on "game theory", a concept that IMO aptly applies to foreign policy. "Cheating" is deemed a destructive behaviour. However, what would be worse and play more into the hands of "cheaters" is if "non-cheaters" become inactive or come up with conflicting policies that actually contribute to the distortion of the issues. When the participants no longer see the real issues then the situation will likely become intractable. IMO, the main issues we need to focus on are the Al Qaeda and removing sources of WMD proliferation. This will buy time for the peacemakers of the world to try and remove the strive that causes some people on the fringe to take on such drastic outlooks as "Jihads or Crusades".
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: YvonLattrapé
Date: 2003-02-18 23:53:03
I think that Canada should be energically resolved to destroy The Evil, not matter where he is. President Bush was clear when he revealed us that The Evil was active in Irak, Iran and North Korea. It is Canada's duty to support and help the Great President G. W. Bush to pulverize The Evil.
We should be as strong and proud as the Great President Bush is. Without the Great President Bush, our Canada would not be free and our people would not be happy. I have at home the official photo of the Great President G. W. Bush, and I think any Canadian should have one, as a reminder of who really protects us.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-19 20:15:16
The US, Led by GW Bush, is also evil. They must be dealt with as we deal with any aggressive, murderous state. There is plenty of proof, one only needs to look. You will not find it in the US controlled media, however. One must do extensive reading and comparisons to get the real picture. Look at all of the major countries' news sites and newspapers. Not just the ones controlled by the few.
Reply to this message
|
|
