Canada's Shame

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

pbfoot said:
What Mkloby said that if we were such great humanitarians how come we were not in Iraq and I in return asked how come the US wasn't in Sarejevo when it was being starved and shelled the longest siege in modern history. The fact is we are fighting in Afghanistan in along with the US Brits Dutch and Aussies . Maestro brought up the money issue not I
Click to expand...

Pb - please let me clarify. I did not mean Canadians. I was referring to those, which generally lie on the far left. Those, that usually come out in force and protest ANY war on the grounds that it is inhumane or unlawful. Those who would rather see a ruler slaughter his own people, even with poisonous gas, rather than intervene with the use of force.

Another avenue these individuals often take is past US policy. Whether the US supported Iraq in the past is not the issue. That cannot be changed. Nobody is saying that US policy in the past was always the best course. Whether the US responded more slowly, too late, or maybe not at all in another conflict is not the issue either.

I think that anyone can recognize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the US to intervene at the forefront and stop all tragedy in the world. Economically speaking, it is just not possible (not to mention the plethora of other reasons as to why it wouldn't be possible). I can't see the use of the argument that the US didn't respond properly to this conflict or that atrocity in the best way, so therefore the US intervening in any is illegitimate, or not only that but it is self serving.

I know you didn't bring up the economic aspect of Iraq, Pb. There are other considerations in Iraq other than simply removing the past regime from power. As far as the US "making money" or "blood for oil" claims, the US has spent a tremendous amount of resources in Iraq. Some don't let this interfere with their belief that it is profit-motive driven, and use the military-industrial complex theory to counter that, or possibly American companies that are involved in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Everyone should be able to see that the US is not gaining ecnomically from her involvement in Iraq, and should look to other reasons as to why the US got involved.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Before you ask why the US was not there, ask yourself why the rest of the world was not there first.

If you wish to be technical the rest of the world did not act until the US Acted when they led the NATO airstrikes.

In fact my old company was the first international helicopters to cross the border into Bosnia.
Click to expand...

I think you're right on. Many other countries use the claim of violation of international law, national sovereignty, or war is inhumane - but I just don't think that makes sense to a rational being. Why is it permissible to allow ruthless bloodshed and slaughter to take place? Any nation with a culture establish in Christianity should be appalled at that notion - although religion throughout much of the world is being attacked for being evil and the root cause of war and conflict - it should be the driving force behind preventing such tragedies as ethnic cleansing, oppression, and tyranny.

Perhaps many nations have their own economic reasons as to not get involved in these international affairs. Maybe they do not wish to shoulder the massive costs associated with launching such an operation. Perhaps they have trade agreements in place with the nation in question, or are tied economically to the status quo.

You can believe the argument that they oppose involvement on ideological grounds alone. A sucker is born every minute.
 
Basically this is how I see it mkloby.

If the US gets involved anywhere in the the world for what ever reason the rest of the world screams "Evil USA" and "USA can not keep there fingers to themselves or mind there own buisness, they are just war wongering cowboys!"

If the US does not get involved and we mind our own business the rest of the world complains that we dont get involved and say we are not doing eneogh to help the world.

The US is damned if it does and damned if it does not.
 
The moral of this to me is never comment on a dumb subject :oops: which is what this whole thread is
 
Britain doesn't have a go, only the stupid British do. In fact, Britain has been fighting alongside the U.S in most conflicts and have been fighting in conflicts without the U.S.

It's alright, yanks, we've got your back as long as there's still some sense left in Britain.
 
Not global intervention but the topic of Canada s shame, if you wish to tlk about global intervention fine. No single country walks the moral high ground every nation on earth has messed up in one form or another .But to put Iraq on the moral high ground doesn't cut it with me . When the 2nd gulf war was about to start I was mistakenly for it , but after finding out how the intelligence was (imho) intentionally skewed I'm glad we up North opted out. Yet at the same time I am in full agreement with our participation in Afghanistan . Our NATO ally was attacked on 9/11 and according to NATO its all for one and one for all but the basis for the attack was formed and planned in Afghanistan not Iraq.
 
pbfoot said:
Not global intervention but the topic of Canada s shame, if you wish to tlk about global intervention fine. No single country walks the moral high ground every nation on earth has messed up in one form or another .But to put Iraq on the moral high ground doesn't cut it with me . When the 2nd gulf war was about to start I was mistakenly for it , but after finding out how the intelligence was (imho) intentionally skewed I'm glad we up North opted out. Yet at the same time I am in full agreement with our participation in Afghanistan . Our NATO ally was attacked on 9/11 and according to NATO its all for one and one for all but the basis for the attack was formed and planned in Afghanistan not Iraq.
Click to expand...

Canada's shame - well the title of the thread is another matter. Not that my opinion of Canada matters but I don't think they have anything to be "shameful" about. It is fine to object to the conflict - and we disagree, but I'm not going to throw insults your way :D

What do you think regarding Iran developing nuclear power and/or weapons? Do you think it would be justified to intervene militarily? Economic sanctions?
 
Iran with nukes is not something I want to see and Sanctions would be the method of choice but in a real world that won't work but feet on the ground or airstrikes will only make the problem far worse .
In problem solving we have to look at the root cause or common thread and that is the dissension between Israel and the Palestinians solve that and we might have a starting point to make the middle east a peaceful area. in otherwords take away the fuel from the fire .
 
pbfoot said:
Iran with nukes is not something I want to see and Sanctions would be the method of choice but in a real world that won't work but feet on the ground or airstrikes will only make the problem far worse .
In problem solving we have to look at the root cause or common thread and that is the dissension between Israel and the Palestinians solve that and we might have a starting point to make the middle east a peaceful area. in otherwords take away the fuel from the fire .
Click to expand...

If the Iranian gov't was destroyed, and the capability to develop nuclear weapons removed, how exactly would that make the problem worse? Do you mean other nations attempting to gain nukes, or exacerbating hostility against westerners in an already largely unfriendly region?

Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proved very difficult (obviously)! I think there are many very aggressive Arabs that will not accept any solution other than Israel ceasing to exist. There is surely a large contingent of Persians that feel the same way. Israel will still be the target of attacks, and will need to come up with a way to defend itself - which will likely start the whole cycle all again, even if a peaceful settlement was acheived.
 
pbfoot said:
Iran with nukes is not something I want to see and Sanctions would be the method of choice but in a real world that won't work
Click to expand...

I agree that in the real world it wont work, but why do you think Sanctions would be the method of choice. As you said it will not work. Sanctions have rarely worked and will not work in Irans case because in order for diplomacy to work both sides have to give and take.

Iran is not willing to give and niether is the west (rightfully so).

pbfoot said:
but feet on the ground or airstrikes will only make the problem far worse .
Click to expand...

Maybe however Iran does not understand anything but the sword. They are not willing to play as adults in the real world. Simple fact.

pbfoot said:
In problem solving we have to look at the root cause or common thread and that is the dissension between Israel and the Palestinians solve that and we might have a starting point to make the middle east a peaceful area. in otherwords take away the fuel from the fire .
Click to expand...

How do you suggest we solve that problem? Iran nuking Israel is no the sollution and unfortunatly that is what they want.
 
As discussed im many other threads these guys have a sense of history that goes back a long way. The UK and US overthrew the legally elected gov't of Iran in 53 and installed the Shah who pretty much crushed all opposition and although he modernized Iran also was pretty brutal to opposition . The US also backed Iraq in that bloody war in the 80's . I think the memories these guys have go way too far back .
If you do a strike on them they close the gulf of Hormuz and although very little oil comes from that area to the US you'll certainly get the Asians upset.
Sanctions would work if you could get the Russians and Chinese on side not just in name. Remember these guys have overthrown bad govt's before and will again but you have to take the common uniting thread out of the the equation .
 
How do you suggest to get Russia and China to sanction them when they enjoy supporting them with military hardware and support at the loss of other nations blood?

I mean how can anyone support Iran when they openly wish to have the mass destruction and death of Israel?
 
It's a vicious circle isn't it , the only place I can think to start would be a fair and equitable land settlement with self gov't for the palestinians and thats just the first building block. The only thing a military strike will do is strengthen the resolve of the Iranians much like the bombing of Britain and Germany and Japan did in ww2
 
Adler - You and I agree on this case.

PB - you have good points. The threat that would be posed by a nuclear Iran, however, is what needs to be addressed. I'm afraid that that is what needs to be paramount. Sanctions can, and should, be attempted first. Getting Russia and China on board would be crucial for it to work - and I don't believe that will be possible. The Chinese and Russians will likely cloak their own agendas under the notion of national sovereignty and Iran's right to pursue peaceful nuclear power.

The clock will continue to tick all the while the Persians continue their program. What do you do next? This can't be delayed forever - because one day we will wake up to the news that Iran has successfully tested a nuclear weapon.
 
pbfoot said:
It's a vicious circle isn't it , the only place I can think to start would be a fair and equitable land settlement with self gov't for the palestinians and thats just the first building block. The only thing a military strike will do is strengthen the resolve of the Iranians much like the bombing of Britain and Germany and Japan did in ww2
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it will increase hostility within the nation to the west. The overriding objective in the short term must be to stop them from going nuclear. If their ability to develop a nuclear weapon is destroyed, then so be it if other peaceful means to stop their program have failed.
 
pbfoot said:
It's a vicious circle isn't it , the only place I can think to start would be a fair and equitable land settlement with self gov't for the palestinians and thats just the first building block.
Click to expand...

That will still accomplish nothing. The Palestinians and Arabs will continue to attack Israel until they hand over the whole country. Israel will not do so and rightfully so. Even if they did so give a portian to Palestine the Iranians will still strive at nothing less than the destruction of Israel. It is in there constitution for christs sake.

There is more to this than just the land of Israel and Palestine.

pbfoot said:
The only thing a military strike will do is strengthen the resolve of the Iranians much like the bombing of Britain and Germany and Japan did in ww2
Click to expand...

The only thing to do at a barking dog is to bark back. When it bites you bite back as well.
 
Remember I've got 6 months in the Middle East as well spent some time in Damascus as that is where our aircraft staged through on my way to the Golan Heights and both sides are nasty pieces of work ..Your analogy of the barking dog is probably the mind set of the Iranians as well even if it is incorrect in our minds. But something has to change otherwise we are going in ever decreasing circles so I don't see what can be lost by not trying to change the root cause of the whole grudgef##k.
 
I am firm believer that the side that wish's to see the death of millions (Iran) is the one that has to waiver and show good faith or they will get nothing in return.

Same with the Palestinians. They will never achieve what they wish by killing innocent women and children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Instal
Canada's antiterrorism efforts
Replies
1
Views
2K
FLYBOYJ
FLYBOYJ
Back