- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
What if We'd Gone to Iraq?
Harper said staying out was 'a serious mistake.' Was it?
Where is Iraq in this election? If Canadian leaders had held a debate focused on foreign affairs, we might have expected them to make much of our relationship with the United States, and within that issue, of the still-burning question of the war in Iraq.
What we have, instead, is a few seconds of a Liberal attack ad, and a few seconds during the debates devoted to the claim that if Stephen Harper had been prime minister in the spring of 2003, our troops would now be on the ground in Iraq. The Liberals are almost certainly right about this, though they've been less forthcoming about the likelihood that had Paul Martin been prime minister, Canadian journalists would have checked in en masse at the Hotel Baghdad, too.
Save for muted criticism from the Conservatives and infrequent mentions in the media, Martin has received something of a pass on the Iraq war issue. His position is less firmly established than Harper's, for one thing, and a Liberal majority is unlikely, for another. But with a Conservative majority a distinct possibility, and a record of very strong statements from Harper on Iraq, the question bears asking: if we'd joined the "Coalition of the Willing" in 2003, where would we be now?
What follows is a thought experiment in "blowback"-the term coined by the CIA to describe the unintended consequences of a foreign misadventure. For the United States, the blowback from Iraq has been very real: lost lives, heavy expense and loss of stature abroad. According to several veteran foreign-policy observers, Canada would have shared in these consequences and seen any residual hopes on issues such as softwood lumber dashed, too. But as one of Canada's best-known peacekeepers points out, it's never as simple as "thank God we didn't go."
Economic casualties?
It is always a grisly equation to trade lives for market share, and the number of Canadian troops killed in Iraq by now would likely lie somewhere between that suffered by Poland (17) and Italy (27).
Still, perhaps the most ardently hoped-for benefit of Canada going to Iraq was that it would end our trade disputes, notably the softwood-lumber dispute and BSE-related border closures. The equation was simple: Canadian soldiers in Iraq = Canadian meat and wood in the U.S. But Desmond Morton, a historian at McGill, points out that that's not how the U.S. political system works. "American trade policy is not affected by this," he says. "American trade policy is made by effective lobbies in congress who couldn't give a flying fart about military policy. The president is not primarily involved in trade policy."
Although it's true that the Bush administration was responsible for imposing the softwood lumber tariffs, senior officials noted at the time that the administration was forced to do it to maintain support in congress for free trade. Further illustrating Morton's point: at the same time as the executive branch sought Canadian support in Iraq, members of both houses of the legislative branch were trying to raise the softwood tariff from 27 to 45 percent. By this rationale, were the Bush administration to lift the softwood lumber tariffs, it would pay a heavy political price from the lobbies that pushed for the tariffs in the first place.
As for the direct economic consequences of going to war in Iraq, two come to mind: how much it would have cost us to go, and whether Canada would have profited directly from the war.
The direct cost would not have been so high as one might think. Save for allowing officers on exchange with the U.S. to go to Iraq, and leaving ships on standby in the Gulf Region, Canada devoted few resources to Iraq, true, but that left it free to commit those resources to Afghanistan. Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, one of Canada's best-known and best-regarded peacekeepers, argues that this was essentially a zero-sum situation. "We had probably emptied the shelves by committing to Afghanistan," he says.
In terms of direct economic opportunities, Canada was shut out of the first round of bidding for reconstruction contracts in Iraq, then saw the Bush administration reverse its ban on non-coalition bids after we pledged $240 million for rebuilding projects there. But in that business there are no guarantees. As USA Today reported after Bush's policy shift, "Bidding on such contracts is complex, costly and hard for foreign contractors to navigate."
Frayed friendships?
In their now famous letter to the Wall Street Journal supporting the war in Iraq, Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day highlighted the longstanding partnership between the United States and Canada. "For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need," they wrote (setting aside Canada's stance on the Vietnam War to make their point).
Loyalty is a difficult thing to measure. But the ill will encountered by some Canadians in the U.S. when Jean Chrétien announced our policy on the war does not seem to have lasted. Michael Byers, Canadian Research Chair in International Law and Politics at UBC, notes, "There's been no new and negative change in the relationship. We still have the largest trading relationship in the world."
Would going to war together have strengthened the relationship? Byers points to the numerous countries that initially supported the coalition, then left. "In a mature relationship with Washington," he says, "you get more respect by saying 'no' than by saying 'yes' and changing your mind a year or two or three years later." He stresses that a firm commitment would have strengthened goodwill between the two capital cities, but notes also, "You don't hear Australia being talked about in the United States. Political memories tend to be relatively short."
Morton takes a similar view. "When you've got one customer in the village, you want him smiling at you," he says. "That doesn't necessarily mean you've got to go to Iraq."
Foreign commitments
Canada has a long-established commitment to multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, and multilateral treaties such as the Kyoto accord. Allen Sens, a professor at the University of British Columbia, says that had we gone to Iraq, "There would be questions about Canada's commitment to multilateralism. [The war] was done outside the UN, it was done outside NATO." By asking Canada to join the coalition, the United States sought above all to borrow the credibility our support for such institutions has given us. Not going, Sens says, "preserved recognition of our independence from the United States."
And what of Iraq itself? Would a Canadian contribution have improved the lives of Iraqis? Canada's troop commitment, had we fully committed to Iraq, would likely have been on a par with the thousand-odd soldiers currently deployed in Afghanistan, and it's unlikely their impact would have been outsized. Asked if Canadians bring any special credibility to the table, Morton replies, "Only in their own heads." Canadians, in kind with Americans, he explains, like to believe that they are "exceptional, beloved around the world for their kindness and generosity. You can do some of that," he says. "You can build a school. But who smashed it yesterday?"
The warrior's honour?
There is a deeper argument to be made regarding the effects of Canadian participation, however. This argument suggests that, having gone to war in Iraq, Canadians could feel justifiably satisfied at having contributed to an ongoing moral project with which we have long been engaged-of intervening where tyranny prevails. It was from this moral vantage that moderate voices such as Michael Ignatieff and Salman Rushdie supported the war, and on this declared moral high ground that the Bush administration has belatedly pitched its tent.
It was also from this ground that Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie set off a small firestorm in the Toronto Star letters section last week by writing of his frustration at seeing Canadians-and Jean Chrétien, in particular-gloat over "our non-official participation in the war and ongoing crisis in Iraq." The war, MacKenzie wrote, by removing Saddam Hussein from power, had saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He put the figure at 100,000 per year, based on reports submitted by human-rights groups at Saddam's trial and elsewhere. "I have argued more than once," MacKenzie says, "that from the point of view of lives saved and regime change, this was a worthwhile undertaking." The first response to his letter in the Star rebutted this perspective with an often-made, but powerful critique: why Iraq and not Zimbabwe? MacKenzie acknowledges that the United States' motivations were muddled, but believes that Iraqis have come out ahead.
The ambiguity of how far ahead, in terms of lives saved, the Iraqis are, and how significant the taint of mixed motives is, shake the moral argument, to be sure. And Iraqis are far from in the clear: it is still possible that, having planned and prosecuted the war as poorly as it rallied support for it, the United States will leave a regime as bad or worse than Saddam's in its wake.
Attracting terror?
Given the uncertain reward, Canadians' relief that we did not join the coalition seems justified, even more so when one factors in the uncertain risks, both domestic and foreign, that we would have assumed in going to Iraq. The Madrid train bombings, as well as the bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, both in 2004, serve as cautionary examples. Allen Sens doesn't believe Canada would have been targeted, given our distance from the major nodes of Islamist terrorist organizations, but Michael Byers is more cautious. "It's probably a coincidence, but not necessarily a coincidence," he says, "that Canada hasn't had a terrorist attack yet."
Both Sens and Byers stress that the evaluation comes down, at base, to whether it would have been worth placing Canadian soldiers in harm's way. "Most importantly," Sens says, "we did not put the lives of our servicepeople at risk for a conflict that, at the end of the day, may not have been strategically sound." There is simply no way of knowing how many soldiers might have died, however willing soldiers like MacKenzie may have been to take on that risk. Byers believes we were fortunate not to have to make this kind of risk/reward calculation. "Jean Chrétien made the right decision and Canadian soldiers did not die as a result," he says.
What will Stephen do?
All of which leads to the take-to-the-polls question: how might a Conservative majority led by Stephen Harper approach a similar situation should it arise in the future? Like what has come before, the question is primarily a thought experiment. Harper has distanced himself from the bold statements he made as opposition leader, pledging last month that he would not send troops to Iraq if he won the election. Given a majority, however, Harper would have the power to ignore this pledge if he wished. Says Sens, "There's nothing preventing the government of the day from making the decision to go to war."
Desmond Morton says Harper will face pressure from the United States to close ranks. "He'll be under great stress," Morton says. "We know how badly Martin managed, and Harper...." His voice trails off and he launches into an anecdote instead:
"I sat on a board with him once, and I was struck by the fact that he never cracked a smile over all the nonsense that went on. That alarmed me. The one saving grace, I believe, in politicians I don't like is that they have a sense of humour. Brian [Mulroney] did, certainly. Sometimes it was cruel, but he had a sense of humour, and he had a sense of humanity. I wish I believed this guy does. Those are not things you can ask people in a debate, or even expect them to reveal."
Jeremy Keehn edits the Field Notes section at The Walrus. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- 'A Gut Feeling'
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Does BC Stand for Ban Clotheslines?
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- Death in Remand: A Jail Crammed with Risk
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Should You Run from that Medical Test?
- 'The Dictator'
107
Login or register to post comments
Avicenna
6 years ago
Comments on "What if We'd Gone to Iraq?"
There is absolutely nothing "humanitarian" about what has gone down in the abysmal mess that corporate greed and the US's "Project of a New America" has induced in Iraq. In fact, I would say it is a humanitarian tragedy and wouldn't hesitate to put Bush and his cronies right up there on trial with Saddam as I don't see how the torture and deaths they have each caused due to self-gluttony is any different - except, of course, one has weapons of mass destruction (and it isn't the guy on that mock trial). I'm sure the victory was the fact they saved the majority of the oil wells. Whatever Chretien's gov't may have done to buy French love - at least the squibbles didn't involve blood shed or Abu Gharib shame. I was embarrassed with the way the Vancouver Board and Trade and the right-wing nuts prostituted our morality by licking the boots of the Bush Administration for fear of losing an unworthy trading partner. The reason this is not an election issue is because the mainstream media (read - CanWest) were essentially onside with the Canadian prostitutes at the time, and they are rooting to harpoon Harper for their catch of the day. The reason why we haven't had any of our buildings blown up and the reason we can travel the world without putting a false flag on our backpacks is because we went with our Liberal conscience and not with the fulcrum of the axis of evil which happens to be our "neighbour but not our nation".
Chris H
6 years ago
When it comes to foreign policy, Harper and Day, will just follow along with whatever the US (George W. Bush) wants us to do. Most Americans believe the war in Iraq to be a huge mistake.
Harper's letter was pathetic and unpatriotic. Can you imagine if the Democrats had sent a letter to foreign countries newspapers apologizing for their invasion of Iraq? What would have been the reaction?
That Harper couldn't live with the fact that the majority of Canadians did not favour sending troops to Iraq, and still don't, is beyond me. Proof that he will not listen to public opinion on issues and go ahead with some of his wacky ideological policy.
NoLeftNutter
6 years ago
So, its acceptable for the Liberals to send troops to Afghanistan but not acceptable for the Conservatives to send troops to Iraq? Is that hypocrisy or a double standard?
Grumpy
6 years ago
Afghanistan is a UN mandated action, while Iraq is a American adventure.
I always surprises me, politicians, who have no military experience, always want to send troops into war!
It seems Harper & Day are 'chocolate' soldiers, pure cowards!
Grumpy
6 years ago
*should be It always........
skeptikool
6 years ago
While a U.S. couple win, between them, 20 years of incarceration for attempting a scam with a severed finger inserted in a food item, the world's most dangerous "terrorist" runs free. I refer, of course, to President G.W. Bush - not as Maclean's magazine would have us believe, "the nuke-happy, Jew-hating lunatic President of Iran" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I have little doubt that had Stephen Harper been PM when Bush delivered his Shock and Awe to Iraq that the attacking sorties would have included Canadian aircraft followed by our forces in the ground war.
Is this alright as long can get cheaper eggs, milk and gasoline across the border and not be hassled on my beef and lumber? The very idea of consorting with any war criminal to win such benefits provokes revulsion.
I doubt that Paul Martin would have had the strength to resist U.S. pressures, had he been PM at the time. Something to think about as we mark our ballots on the 23rd.
Elliot
6 years ago
down with the evil empire!!!!
until we need some help.
too cheap.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
Does anyone else remember Stockwell Day standing in the house claiming that a Scud missile had landed in Kuwait and that was proof that Iraq had been in violation of weapons limitations? Of course it turned out to be a Chinese missile they were allowed to maintain in their arsenal. Obviously the Reformatories are operating with "bad intelligence" just like their bully boy big brother hypocrites in Washington. And this jackass might be MoD? Terrifying.
ubiquitous
6 years ago
I don't think that it's "bad intelligence" skip, it's just outright lies. Much like the lie the Elliot willingly believes when he says "until we need some help". As if Canada is under a military threat (although perhaps after next week, we will be).
Coyote
6 years ago
As I've said before in these Tyee threads, Canada is in fact already well involved in its classic bootlick role, on the side of the US Empire in its war against the Arab peoples. We are in the gulf doing inderdiction duty for the Empire with our navy, and with a growing troop presence in Afghanistan, freeing up US treasure and forces to concentrate on the subjugation of Iraq.
We are already complicit thereby with US imperialism in their efforts to secure/hold an imperial beach head in Palestine, through the creation of the puppet State of Israel out of the diaspora of European jewry, as we have been similarly drawn in to be ever since we stopped playing the same essential bum-boy role for the old British Empire. Which primary event, that of the ethnic cleansing/holocaust of the old Palestine, along with US imperialism's support for despotic Arab regimes that supress their own peoples, and who serve as quasi-colonial regimes in The Empire's rape of Arab resources, led to the events of 911 itself.
And while there was an initial recoil from getting embroiled in Iraq itself, though there have always been reports of our having "exchange troops" attached to US forces there-, along with the major States of Europe, save France, we have opted to nontheless ingratiate ourselves and make up for it, by dying for The Empire in Afghanistan. And regardless of Grumpy's lame attempt to apologize for that above, by saying it was a UN sanctioned war, it was really more kissing Amerika's ass again, which much of the entire so-called "free" capitalist world does out of habit, after the fact of the invasion of Afghanistan anyway-, and to temper The Empires mood from doing them all economic or other harm. (Mustn't disrupt the free flow of goods amongst the major powers of capitalism.)
The reality is, we are in harms way near as much as was Spain or is Italy, as consequence of our ass kissing role for The Empire in the Middle East Region. And to suggest that we are otherwise, as Afghanistan's own insurgent reaction to the invasion there heats up and begins to kill more of our own troops-, with President Kharzi pleading not to be abandoned now, is more than just a little feigning naivete.
From the time I was in the Canadian military, and aye, even before, this country has always played that bootlick role in world affairs, following first the British and then the US Empire around the world, serving as their kind of bat boy, but really more a "gopher" or "bum boy".
"Yes, Masah." "No, Masah."
It is all finally beginning to run down though, to the question of how much longer this country is going to be/can be content to play this humiliating role in the world, of late for the US Empire. Otherwise certainly, we cannot in all honesty plead innocence if the enemies of the Empire decide to come over here and give us a good slap in the face too.
It is long past time this country began to draw a line around and retreat from its complicit, on our hands and knees under the table involvement with the US Empire. And that doesn't mean that we abandon all "mutually beneficial" relationship with them-, merely that it no less serves our own actual material and "sovereign" interests. And that we begin to strengthen our own independence serving, stand alone and be self-sufficient economy, and the democratic institutions of our sovereign nationhood.
We've had the blinkers on long enough, as to the real nature of our relationship with the US Empire. For we might as well know what the rest of the whole world really already knows about us anyway.
jesterjogger
6 years ago
chickenhawks like harper (and bush) are always the first to propose war especially when it's not their a$$ on the line.(how many deferments did bush and cheney get from serving in Vietnam again?)
Then on Rememberance day they have the gaul to pretend to care while, with fake solemnity, hanging wreaths over cenotaphs stating "Never Again". Yeah right!! They're the ones that always start the conflict in the first place.
hey w, why did'nt you simply duel with saddam as this would have saved so many lives?
As for harper I'm certain he'll encourage his children to enlist in the military so they might assist the bush crusaders in their holy wars. Just like all the wealthy backers of the conservative and republican party's.
nightbloom
6 years ago
I must admit, prior to & during the invasion I was a strong (nay - vehement) supporter of the U.S. military intervention. I'd been convinced of its inevitability since the late nineties (Clinton was the first to advocate 'Regime Change'). I didn't stumble over the WMD issue, because my rationale didn't depend solely and that, and I felt from the start that they were pinning too much on that issue alone. There was already a strong case without it. Moreover, I recognized that only a self-interested state (like the U.S.) could commit the resources, manpower and political will to undertake such a huge liability.
Moreover, I had carefully followed the diligent work by James Baker III and his think tank throughout the nineties regarding the post-invastion reconstruction and the implementation of a democratizing programme. The Baker cadre had a solid and credible plan worked out (albeit a costly one), a fact which has been virtually entirely ignored by the media.
However, I became dismayed by the sidelining of Baker's scheme, and the jettisoning of the Powell Doctrine that was inherent in the Rumsfeldt-Cheney prewar planning. Things would be very different in Iraq today if the had listened to the people who had been working on the issue over the preceding decade, and gone in with everything instead of cutting corners. Rumsfeldt needed a showpiece war-on-the-cheap in order to help justify more activist & myriad future applications of U.S. military power elsewhere.
I was also dismayed at the gratuitous vandalism of the Atlantic consensus the Cheney-Bush diplomacy wrought (lets not mention the Secretary of State at the time, Powell, as he was totally sidelined). Over the past 50 years Canada has invested a lot (not as much as it should) in the trans-Atlantic alliance framework, so we were justified in being cool towards an American approach which basically weakened & invalidated it.
So Canada did the right thing in not committing blood & treasure to the adventure (not that we could have done much in a combat capacity anyways). We've contributed in other ways.
Having said that, I still think that once the mess subsides we're going to end up with a democratic Iraq in the end, and the first casualty of that new democratic will is going to be the American designs in that country. It's just going to take a lot longer than we were hoping.
Given the damage which America has done to itself internationally, however, I can scarcely say now that it was worth it.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
You must be joking.
nightbloom
6 years ago
Not at all. Clinton liked to talk tough from time to time. One specific instance was Clinton's speech at the Pentagon on Feb. 18, 1998.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/607rkunu.asp?pg=1
clubofrome
6 years ago
Okanagan-Coquihalla: Stockwell Day
An open question to all eligible voters in the above riding: Are you willing to risk economic sanctions if you return Stockwell Day to Ottawa? Elect him and I'm boycotting your wineries. If he makes cabinet, it's Washington State fruit for me! You've been warned.
moodyguy
6 years ago
Several Points:
"Harper's letter was pathetic and unpatriotic. Can you imagine if the Democrats had sent a letter to foreign countries newspapers apologizing for their invasion of Iraq? What would have been the reaction?"
You got it. This guy wants to be Prime Minister of our sovereign nation? I fear that far too many people are voting against the Liberals and are willing to give the Conservatives a "chance". This is running the country that we are talking about, not time at bat in a scrub baseball and that "chance" could, and I believe will, cost us dearly.
2. Afganistan and Iraq are two very different situations and are two different questions. Afganistan's governmant openly harboured and protected organized people who were intent on harming people in other places (terrorists). The UN santioned the actions. Should we have participated? I don't know as I have not looked at other options in a country that after 25years of guerrilla war was and is a basket case. Iraq clearly was not in this situation and was targeted by the US for reasons of power in the region (if you believe that the reason was democracy for the Iraqi people which is may be a laudable goal, then I would gladly sell you the Lions Gate bridge, if it hasn't been sold yet by our local neocons).
Can gov't change occur without invasion, even if it is totalitarian and ruthless (as Saddam was)? There have been countless examples even in the last 20 years of this happening.
We did the right thing to stay out. Harepr would not have even thought of the possibility of not being part of the "coalition of the willing". Harper is running a great campaign but he is running one that is hiding all of the views that he has espoused over his entire public life. The analogy would be Jack Layton becoming a fellow of the Fraser Institute.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
That doesn't make him "the first to advocate regime change." I'm sure you don't need a lengthy list of prior US attempts at 'regime change' posted here. It's a strange comment to have made.
skeptikool
6 years ago
nightbloom wrote:
I really can't believe that you are on the side of the bloody ghouls who contrived this illegal war but had they "gone in with everything instead of cutting corners" would we not possibly be looking at more than the estimated 200,000 Iraqi dead today? Do those dead count for nothing?
I can't get over the blind acceptance of so many that would have the U'S. "impose" its democracy anywhere it wishes. Certainly for women, Iraq was one of the more advanced areas in that part of the world.
It was more about oil and benefits to Bush's oilpatch friends, plus deals with Haliburton and Bechtel, to name a couple of the war profiteers, in my opinion.
Peter Dimitrov
6 years ago
....am in agreement with Avicenna and Coyote's analysis here....what we need are soverign nation building policies, foreign policy included. Looking to the past is one thing, but looking to future is another. Avicenna raises the point saying "that issue/ raised in the article" is an election non-starter within the private corporate media.true..true...But looking to the future....is it reasonable to expect, that like all neo-cons - who desire to diminish the state & public sector and expand and enrich the private corporate sector through less law, regulation, and of course via privatization or "common-wealth" - water, the environment, and particularly the "CBC" and other Crown corporations....just what are Harpo's intentions with the CBC? ....which is a primary means whereby Canadians communicate and discuss with one another - such vital matters as foreign policy, and the political on-goings of this country. Is reasonable to expect a "cut, slash, burn, privatize, break-labor contract", attack workers, First Nations, women, students, seniors, the environment time" - as we have had in BC under the provincial neo-cons known as the "Fiberals".
Peter Dimitrov
6 years ago
am in a hurry...should read "through privatization of our "common-wealth"...etc
rjm
6 years ago
Stockwell Day has three sons, none of whom are in the military.
tks,
rjm
hunter
6 years ago
rjm- Oh well, after the Cons are elected his sons can spread freedom. Better his than mine.
rjm
6 years ago
I found this article interesting, but I have to question the contention that there is no evidence of purposeful misrepresentation in the argument for war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801874.html
tks,
rjm
fishguy
6 years ago
A couple thoughts on the Iraq thing.
First of all Saddam Hussein. This guy is/was a complete animal and I shed no tears for him in his downfall. However I look at it kind of like this. Say my neighbour has a big assed dog, vicious thing. Predictably one day the beast gets out of his yard and brutally savages a couple of neighbourhood kids, kills our beloved pet cat and rips to shreds the award winning flower gardens of the lovely little old lady across the street.
In response the blockhead neighbour takes the dog out back and inflicts a prolonged and horrific beating on the dog. This brutality does not impress me, in fact it makes me feel even more disgust and disdain for this jerk than I already did. Saddam was America's dog... they picked him, they trained him, they fed him and they encouraged his brutality. That they took him out leaves me cold, it was their mess to clean up, and in completely inept style, their clean up created a new and horrific mess of brutality, death and suffering.
The second issue I would bring up is the PNAC. Wake up people, Iraq is chapter one of the imperial plan of the PNAC. This is not a hidden agenda. It is all there in black and white. Total, unchallenged world domination is the aim of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al. If Canadians think that they will be spared because we are such good friends, they are pollyanna. The question of whether Canada should have or should be helping the US to accomplish this worldwide empire seems like a no brainer to me. If you want to be an American you support them, otherwise, resist, resist, resist.
redrivergirl
6 years ago
http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
These people now holding sway in the B admin, went to Clinton with this and he told them to forget it.
For those of you under forty...
If you tilt your ear south, you can hear the steady beat of the war drum to attack Iran. Under Harper we will be Germany's Italy and don't think they wouldn't hesitate to institute a draft.
Geo-politically we could be in a real world war this time next year.
Coyote
6 years ago
Way too much intellectual apologetics going on here to really even bother to unravel, let alone worth being replied to. Just more same old, same old Canadian "liberal" intellectual obscurantisms, scrambling around on hands and knees attempting to sniff out where the Masah has pissed, so that he can kind of roll around in it., and wrap himself in its manly scent.
Some Neocons do the same thing around here all the time.
poindexter
6 years ago
I find it funny how the anti-americans and extreme lefties here somehow make some sort of connection that if Canada had become involved, that anyone who has two arms and legs would be signed up and fighting in Iraq.
The fact is that even in the US, no one has, or is going to be, conscripted. The only people there are soldiers, who joined the army, navy etc willingly, and are employed to fight in a war.
If Canada were involved, we would be sending our soldiers there, who joined the forces to do just that. I know several people in the Canadian Armed Forces, and that's what these guys and girls do. They sign up willingly to go to places like Afghanistan, Cypress, Yugoslavia. It's why they joined the service.
So I think we have to keep in perspective that it won't be your boys and girls over there fighting if Canada were involved. Unless of course your boys and girls are in the armed forces. In which case you would understand and be prepared for them to go to war.
poindexter
6 years ago
Redrivergirl I think you are being a little paranoid. But fair enough, let's just say you're right....
Who would rather be allied with in WWIII? The US or some one like Iran?
I don't agree with a lot of US foreign policy, but I think people are too quick to write off the US. The fact is we are their neighbour, and without the US we are in serious trouble.
Unfortunately sometimes you have to accept reality, and in this case reality is that we are allies of the US and we are going to have to work with them a lot more than most people on this site would like.
Coyote
6 years ago
An analogy that had totally escaped me, redrivergirl, and an excellent one.
And while we might argue the timeline, clearly the course The Empire is on, with us dutifully following along behind, such that if they suddenly stop we've got our head rammed up their ass, leads to world war on any number of fronts, involving Russia or China, or even Europe. This latter which cannot be happy either, with the thought of US Imperialism controlling the world oil supply in what they have historically viewed as their Empire backyard. (Imagine US reaction if Europe was in Latin America, invading and attempting to control say, Venezuala and/or larger areas of Latin America-, presuming it could really do anything about it, overtly or covertly.)
redrivergirl
6 years ago
Especially when Haliburton has the inside scoop.
Actually we didn't stand by Britian and the US in their time of 'greed' rather than 'need'.
This is such a terrible thing. Killing innocent people for money. Tell me why are those children in Pakistan freezing and suffering? What is our gov't, in our name, doing to make sure they have supplies like mits and scarves and coats and boots? The invisible cost of this stupid money grab 'war' because normally the world would be responding in a cohesive manner.
redrivergirl
6 years ago
Poindexder, it isn't being aligned with Iran. It's being aligned with what is right over what is wrong.
We are allies of the American people who are suffering under the capture of their gov't and their constitution by radicals. We are allies of the America we love and the ideals expressed by what is good about them.
Coyote
6 years ago
Poindexter is merely another sick puppy US apologist here, whose arguments and intent are transparent enough I think. Had these Cons their way, they would bring down Amerika's enemies on us all, on our own home turf, without a thought or twinge of conscience, let alone hesitate to waste our treasure and blood in The Empire's defense-, and at least the "treasure" part we would all have to cough up a share of. Even assuming that this is not going to escalate to where it is a wider war that leads to conscription, which I will not certainly presume.
These dudes are trying to sweet talk you into voting for Harpo's Cons. That's all that is going on here. They are our "Fifth Column" to deal with.
poindexter
6 years ago
What's it like for you lefties living in such a paranoid world? Thinking that everything and everyone is a conspiracy, they're out to get you.
I'd never waste my time trying to convince Layton lovers like you guys to vote for Harper, I know that's not going to happen. It's just intersting to try to inject some rationale thought into this website, but that usually just earns contempt from the socialists who reject anyone who thinks for themselves and doesn't bow to the left.
Anyways, I'm late for my meeting with some corporate execs and conservatives to drink our daily ration of innocent children's blood.
Fiat lux
6 years ago
Nobody knows what the casualty figures of Iraq will be, as every soldier, of any particiapting nation, including the few Canadians, are under virtual sentence of long sufferings and death on account of the radiation from the DU ammunition spread all over the country.
The carefully hidden casualty figures of the First Gulf War, where hardly any Allied soldiers were killed in combat, and only a fraction of the DU ammo was used, show some horrible figures of multiple cancers in the soldiers of all nations.
Anybody who's not familiar with the "Gulf War Syndrome", should go to Google and type in "Gulf War DU casualty figures"
The US could end up with a quarter of a million, or more, in years to come, when the cancers have time to grow and develop.
As far the comments of the generals of any nation are concerned, who the hell cares?
Ed Deak, Big Lake. (WW2 veteran, wounded in action)
Coyote
6 years ago
"Anyways, I'm late for my meeting with some corporate execs and conservatives to drink our daily ration of innocent children's blood." Pointy Head Dexter.
To which I give more credibility than your usual analyses and system apologetics around here. And to suggest that you are somehow an "independent" thinker, above we mere common herd "lefties", would suggest that your thinking somehow represents a break from status quo/conventional ideas and world view. Which we are yet to see any evidence of from yourself or your pals here.
The brain
6 years ago
Avicenna, Coyote, Peter, right again:
But the guy who deserves the most credit here, is Peter Keehn. Talk about a Keehn eye for the truth.
I propose a theory beyond oil in Iraq. Its a theory, I sure hope I'm wrong, but, anyways, its still word a read just in case.
It involves the Saudi's and their 7% plus ownership of the U.S. empire and the billions they've spent to secure the Bush families whims.
The U.S. is now being controlled by Saudi relations in ways that few of us want to admit. We don't want to admit the U.S. connection between the former and possibly still CIA funded Bin Laden. (its funny how they haven't caught him yet, eh?) We don't want to admit that the U.S. is 49% foreign owned and growing, largely due to the wasted treasure spent on green housing the planet, with a Bush agenda to "Consume, consume!" But on list last note, we are pretty much agreed.
The last thing anyone wants to admit is U.S. foreign policy on IRAN since the Bush adminstration took over from Reagan in the 80's. It has always been about IRAN. Iraq has the oil, sure, that's the treasure to plunder, but the U.S. can't fly its flag and claim to own it or steal it freely with IRAN there to resist.
In the end, the U.S. will want to control the middle east entirely, with Saudi and Israel region help, of course. Their true resistance in the equation? IRAN. And it won't come lightly. Iran's military and airforce is for real.
And, to complicate things, religious differences and Stockwell Day bible interpretations, along with 2200 soldiers CBC reported to being military excercises to ferret the "insurgents" of Afganistan which is next door to what countries?
Better to fight on two sides than one. If IRAN goes down, militarily speaking, the U.S. can pretty much do what they want with this region unless other nations jump in. This was always the goal of the U.S., I feel, and I certainly hope I'm wrong, Just a theory, but... that's in part what blogs are for, right? What if?
This much is certain. Stephen Harpers intentions to back the U.S. on military agenda's are cut and dried and we know who's running the show down south. A corporate Saudi puppet, and its sad that the Harpers of the world don't see it. But then, to quote Keehn's personal experience one more time:
"I sat on a board with him once, and I was struck by the fact that he never cracked a smile over all the nonsense that went on. That alarmed me."
It should alarm anyone with common sense.
allan
6 years ago
I'm a bit confused here.
Was Canadian historian Desmond Morton speaking about Stockwell Day when he said Americans "wouldn't give a flying fart.."?
Good article Jeremy.
It just boggles my mind how some of these right wing whackos can link the death of thousands including potentially many Canadians with a chance to get softwood duties back from the carpetbagging political system in Washington.
How many victories does Canada need from the World Trade Org. and various NAFTA panels over those billions in duties, before they realize the US will simply do what it wants regardless of how many times we pull down our national pants and let them have their way with us?
elliot, please tell us when was the last time America opened its chequebook for Canadians?
Seems to we are the one always being asked to give, give and give some more.
Bad enough we have essentially committed to freezing in the dark before the US stops having unhindered access to our oil and gas.
Now we have home grown idiots insisting we donate blood to their killing fields as well.
Poindexter, you have just been installed into my growing list of bloody idiots. World War 111, give me a goddamn break pal.
We've got something called GLOBAL WARMING that'll make your dreams of glory on the battle field for GM and Haliburton, seem like
kid's stuff.
That's the big and likely final war and the US appears to be public enemy number one in that battle.
And, come to think of it, your Stephen Harper has already announced he is siding with the enemy on that one if he takes control.
I'd call that treason.
Elliot
6 years ago
isn't it fantastic that the shallow narrow-minded american-bashing isn't going to work this time. isn't it pathetic that it worked so often in the past.
tommymoore
6 years ago
Here's the real deal:
Iran wants to set up trading in oil for euros.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/petrov011606.html
Saddam Hussein tried this in 2000.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
This would precipitate a collapse of the US dollar, which in turn would cause the US empire to crumble. And crumble it will. The only hope for Canada is to distance ourselves ASAP from the US economically, which may prove impossible given the constraints and pledges inherent in NAFTA. A possible solution may be to abrogate this agreement, but not one politician in this country has even skirted this issue. Grounds for dissolution of the agreement exist, yet PM the PM, and definitely Stephen Harper the would-be PM have uttered word one on the subject. I find it baffling that a strategy to deal with this potential catastrophe has not been concocted. The US is own8d. Their creditors could destroy them by merely calling in the debt tomorrow, and in that event the comfortable life we have come to know ends.
allan
6 years ago
Thanks for the links Tommymoore. It puts a lot of the current US hysteria about Iran into focus.
It certainly does add to the sense that Iran is the meat the U.S. wants to consume between the Iraqi and Afgahni slices of bread.
The brain
6 years ago
Allan: ;-)
Tommymore: checked out your sites. Interesting perspectives. It puts some extra motive behind this milleniums U.S. foreign policy. Some of the ideology, however, is dated. The Euro is likely poised to be the next world currency, or a combo of one of three or four world currencies involving the EURO, the U.S. dollar (for now), the Japenese Yen, and the China's yet to be defined currency, that for some reason, I've temporarily forgotten. (wups) Gold isn't quite it just yet.
There is still no need yet for Gold to become a world currency, but it does have its lustre in relation to keeping values built on commodity demand more than paper and ink, especially in speculative times.
The motive for going into Iraq was multifold. It was about Haliburtons contracts for Chaney's stock portfolio. It was about Saudi control over the Bush family and the Bush's lusty fleeting reign of power. It was about plundering real resources, et. el. oil. It is still about U.S. domination of the middle east, and, as a surprise, it is also about oil being traded in the U.S. dollar, as you have suggested.
But things have changed in 4 years. The world doesn't think much of Bush and his foreign and economic policies. The U.S. economy is much weaker than it was in 2000 with an extra staggering 3.4 trillion plus in U.S. federal debt, 49% foreign owned and growing, with Japan owning close to 18%, Saudi's own 7% plus, and China, Europe, and other mid east countries make up the rest. China's share is growing faster than anyone else's at the moment. (I wish I knew their percentages, once did, but forgot).
It's like this, and you've hit the nail on the head, Tommymore. U.S. currency is in a crisis, they are on the brink of losing control over their own ownership of debt, and soon, the U.S. will be ignored somewhat with their threats from here on in, largely because they can't even pull their own purse strings and the world is preparing itself for a economic future without them in many ways, except one.
They still want them as a customer and once that customers credit is no longer valid and the currency drops with no interest rate hikes there to help them, the world is sent into an economic recession from the lost of their best customer. The big question mark is what role China will play in all of this. They could become the next world power within 10 years.
Will the U.S. rely on war to consume their way out of a near term collapse? It would be their last hurrah, and it is increasingly evident that the fat cats down south don't think much of Bush any more.
Is Stephen Harper out of touch with this? Moreso than anyone could possibly imagine. No one with a brain lies comfortably in bed with a diseased elephant on its last leg.
My guess is Martin is uncomfortably sleeping with them due to oil revenue surplus's kept strong with a strong dollar, and Fed surplus's as a result, but thats about it. Even so, I wouldn't trust a Lib majority and there's no fear of it happening. Its a Con majority that I fear.
Allen, Tommymore, if it matters, your names are big with me today.
fishguy
6 years ago
Don't take too much comfort from the US economy being totally bankrupted. I feel that the neocons are doing this intentionally to lay the groundwork for getting sufficient numbers of US citizens on board for the endgame of world conquest.
Once the Americans take military possession of the world they won't have to pay any debts they deem illegitimate or to enemies of the Imperial body. They can't get enough American citizens on board with the effort and sacrifice necessary for that conquest unless they face even greater loss if they don't act.
fishguy
6 years ago
I also have a view on the equivalent position vis a vis the Nazi Germany/USA comparison. I think that Canada would be more like an Austria rather than an Italy. The comparison fits better when things like relative military power, language and culture are considered. That makes Mexico the Italy and guess who gets to play Japan? why... Japan again! convienient no?
Maybe Canada is more like Czechoslovakia though eh? With the golden horseshoe the equivalent of the Sudetenland?
The Canadian Shield is alive with the sound of music!!! lol
grw
6 years ago
I know people like Poindexter and Elliott are just flamers who want to smear people they disagree with, but I thought I'd let them know that not everyone who is pro-Canada sovereignty or anti-Harper is an anti-American or extreme leftie. Some of us are middle of the road who take issues as they come and address them individually.
nightbloom
6 years ago
Skeptikol - Of course it was all about self-interest from the U.S. point of view.
Moreover, there will never be a consensus on what constitutes illegal & legal war. Just War Theory is pure contingency, though a necessary and important one. Incidentally (Truman, are you out there?) the only international body which advanced the Just War argument in opposition to Washington at the time was the Vatican. The immitators followed when their own flimsy casuistic arguments were decimated by the partisan pundits.
Nevertheless, Hugo Grotius does provide us with ample reasoning to support military invasion under the conditions which then prevailed in Iraq.
International law is still an experimental area (we can't even use 'jurisprudence' in this context). The American invasion of Iraq was not illegal, strictly speaking. The Korean War was technically illegal (military action was sanctioned by majority vote in the General Assembly, circumventing the Security Council...Yet the General Assembly has no such statutory power to authorize military intervention in the name of the United Nations).
Hence, the Korean War was illegal precisely because it was accomplished through established mechanisms. The Iraq Invasion is in legal limbo - pure anarchic neo-Realist opportunism at its most shameless...but not illegal.
allan
6 years ago
nightbloom, just how far are you willing to go to avoid reality.
Yes there are laws against such hostile actions or at least resolutions agreed to by the majority of UN nations.
Of course you and others can say the UN has no power over G.W. Bush or his country.
But when a nation takes it upon itself to play host to the UN on a constant basis and then accepts a senior strategic council seat and votes on vertually every resolution coming to the fore in New York, most us would take it that the US has at least tacitly accepted the role of the UN.
Hey, I won't even try to use the pathetic case of the US going to the UN to try to press the world body into taking its side.
That's like me showing up a some evangelical church calling myself a good christian and seeking support to beat up on local Muslims and then turning around and adding, I really don't care if you turn me down because you don't count anyway.
It's only a legal war if you buy into the post-invasion excuse, that Saddam had to go and all the death and destruction getting there was justified.
The US used WMD as it's reason to smash the doors down. Sorry, but even if you are the Emperor himself you have got to be consistant in your excuses.
The lies about the WMD are all too threadbare today to try to play that game.
In fact I would say that in comparison to the US invasion, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 was a hundred times more justified.
Please stop trying to defend and justify this terrorist's efforts to grab more middle eastern countrol.
And speaking about the Korean war, that's simply another example of where the US jumped into something and then managed to drag half the world in with it before anyone thought about maybe trying more diplomatic means.
Of course the big stick always was a prime US diplomatic tool, wasn't it.
Brain, I appreciate the sentiment and all, but if you could spell my name right once, I'd certainly feel more assured my name is big with you today.
allan
6 years ago
nightbloom, one more question, please define neo-realism and is it related to neo-excusism if it's happening in a war setting?
Coyote
6 years ago
Nightbloom is again attempting his bend over rationalizations for The Empire. And frankly he is full of shit on this issue of whether or not there is a concencus, on whether or not Iraq was an "unjust" and "illegal" war. Indeed outside of the war criminals themselves in this case, who cannot be expected to tie the knot on their own gallows rope and pull the trip, there is indeed a widespread view or concensus that the Iraq War is both unjust and illegal.
Indeed, it violates the standards and principles by which western civilzation has itself sought to judge a wars "justness" or lack thereof, which have come down to us through sundry phililosphers and thinkers from the time of Cicero, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. (See this site below.)
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/unjust.html
Leading up to the war, President Bush offered a series of causes to go to war. Among them: Saddam was evil; United Nations resolutions must be enforced; the Iraqi people should be liberated. But the cause most often cited by the president was self-defense.
Invoking the specter of 9-11, the president argued that the nexus of a tyrant like Saddam, vast stores of weapons of mass destruction, and the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda operatives or sympathizers was a mortal threat to the United States that justified war.
For the president, it was not necessary that there were manifest signs of that threat. After 9-11, such signs could no longer be expected. What was necessary was to act preventively now or risk an all-but-certainly catastrophic future.
While self-defense is the classic instance of a just cause, the highly speculative nature of the president's self-defense argument was a moral problem from the start. Many critics rightfully said that the president's unspecified and distantly future nature of the threat from Saddam failed a crucial ethical test: The certainty of war's death and destruction could not be justified in the face of such distant uncertainty."
And for the matter of whether the war was illegal or not, I refer you to none other than Kofi Annan, head of the UN, and on which again, save for the criminals involved, there is similarly widespread agreement as to the wars initial and ongoing illegality. All that prevents the arrest warrant being acted upon, of course, is the sheer overwhelming power and possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction of the criminal state in question itself. It is in unchallengeable possession, with an insistance on its own right to a nuclear weapons monopoly, of a kind of ability to merely dispense his own criminal brand of Victors Justice. This is the great over-riding reality of the time, which the world has yet to overcome.
And for which same reason, too often, the US has been allowed to manipulate the UN for its own purposes, simply because none other is able to yet stand up to it, including our own pathetic selves, and they and we know it. That or they have simply, as in the case of Iraq, when they couldn't get the UNs sanction of "legality", they simply ignored it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
So stop your bullshit, Nightbloom, and petty attempts to intellectualize your jail bird attraction/affections for the criminal thug in this case of war crime. For you are indeed displaying a penchant to be naively attracted to this thug, a phenomena not entirely unknown in psychiatry and larger social behaviours. (Canada itself, as a nation, displays some of the same tendency towards Empires, British and US. Certainly this is true of our Neocons. They too do a lot of bending over and touching their toes.)
The brain
6 years ago
Allan: (Wups, one for two there, today) :-)
wiley
6 years ago
It's pretty distastful to describe the Iraq situation in business terms , Jeremy. That's a job for Cheney and his privatized hit men, not for someone living under the only beacon of light left in North America. Under false pretenses and manufactured fear, the US went into Iraq and smashed the beehive to collect the honey, and then called the swarm of angry bees "terrorists". How bloody convenient! Meanwhile tens of thousands have died in agony, hundreds of thousands wounded and made homeless, the country is strewn with radioactive contamination, and is now breaking apart under ethnic violence. I am proud of Canada for staying the hell out of this shameful quagmire, and hopfully the next one looming on the horizon.
The brain
6 years ago
Coyote:
I continue to love your posts. In feeling somewhat theoretical today, I would like to add that while it is a well known fact that Osama Bin Laden was on a CIA payroll in the 80's under Bush senior with interests in IRAN, most assume Bin Laden went renegade and the rest is history.
What if Bin Laden didn't go renegade? What if he's still working for Bush (senior)? 911 saved his saved his sons presidency, gave them a new disctraction and focus for media, gave them the right to continue this illegal war...
Its a dark day to start thinking that the Bush family would take out their own twin towers and some whitehouse or pentagon brick and mortar... but lets face it. We ask the "who benefits" question, and... I doubt that I need to go too heavily into Bush and Bin Laden family ties at this point.
I could only suggest that George senior, if ever found guilty of it, would answer with an analogy.
"Sometimes, in order to make an omelette, you've got to break a few eggs." You know, for the good of the country. To me, Bush is just another finger pointer who lives up to the saying, "99% of the time, the accusor is the guilty one." Its funny when you think of which nation is presently sitting on the most WMA's in the world.
Wallace
6 years ago
poindexter writes:
"It's just intersting to try to inject some rationale thought into this website"
Funniest thing I've read today. Humour from the right. who'da thunk it? Thanks 'dexter. Not that you intended it to be funny.
Coyote
6 years ago
Actually, of which I am aware, this kind of phenomena begins even earlier than Osama. I don't know if you remember Noriega, the former president of Panama, now installed in a Miami jail following an invasion of that country by the US, but he too had been a former CIA agent for US imperialism. But he made the same mistake of both Osama and Sadaam, and we're not talking the "niceness" of any of them here, but that they all in the end came to act in the interests of their own peoples and nations, as they perceived them-, whether one here agrees with that or not.
Fatal mistake in relations with the Empire. It instantly puts you on their "renegade/out of control" terrorist list. And that has fundamentally been the fate of all these dudes, former CIA "controlled" minions of the Empire itself.
The world and its affairs are complex, of course (wellll, simple-, really, but another story), and the intrigue, especially around dealing with empires, legend. Of which all of these characters have all become a part of. And it is not a matter of what we think of them so much, or whether they are nice guys or not, and nice guys get eaten in realpolitik, but their fatal flaw insofar as US Imperialism is concerned, is that they in the end chose to serve not them, but their own nations' national interests, against those of the currently ascendant Empire.
I don't particularly like these guys as persons, or even many of the particulars of the causes they champion(ed),don't even have to. But one can still admire their huzpah at a certain level, at which even we are less admirable, and but a mere sychophant state.
lynn
6 years ago
Excellent response on the Iraq war, Coyote.
What we are seeing by the PNAC neo-cons is international law falling prey to that favourite word of neo-cons everywhere, (so familiar to those of us even here in BC).... "flexibility". The re-structuring of the world by ignoring and stretching the tenets of international law, (mere legal elastic bands to neo-cons) to comfortably fit their own new century purpose.
These moralizing neo-cons and their war crimes are the definition of immorality.
nightbloom, worth the read is the final Declaration of the World Tribunal on Iraq held in Istanbul last June, especially a piece by Phil Shiner on their site.
http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=91
fishguy; great piece (way above) by the way, especially your call to resist, resist, resist. It is definitely what the future will demand of us if this country is to survive.
Chris H
6 years ago
poindexter: "The only people there are soldiers, who joined the army, navy etc willingly, and are employed to fight in a war."
Ever notice where they set up their recruiting offices? Is it in the rich neighbourhoods? The poor kids coming out of highschool are sold a bill of goods that if they join the army, they'll get money for college and their success is assured. Faced with working at Walmart all their lives or joining the army, many choose the army. Unfortunately, for many, it ends up being not worth it. Whay aren't Bush's daughters over in Iraq? Isn't it a noble cause? It must be worth American lives or why are they there? I guess it is only worth certain people's lives. Like the poor I guess. Sad.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
In America this is exactly right. Predatory and manipulative recruiting tactics abound.
In a new book by a soldier serving in Iraq, the author jokes that the letter to his parents in the event of his death would read: "You were right. I should have gone to college!"
But was the opportunity there for him?
The brain
6 years ago
Hey, Lynn:
Checked your link. Thanks.
poindexter
6 years ago
That's right Chris H...victims!! We're all victims!!
Gerhardius
6 years ago
Nightbloom:
Wasn't it Security Council Resolution 82 that sanctioned the UN military involvement in Korea? There are PDFs here of the SC resolutions from 1950:
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1950/scres50.htm
allan:
Stalin and Mao supported the attack on the RoK and there was little hope for a diplomatic solution aside from accepting the unification of Korea under Kim Il-Sung.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
We argue about the benefits of joining the Muslim Cause, The Jewish cause, The severe debate.
What do we know ? Nothing.
Osama gave in yesterday, I think.
But what do anyone of us know what to think of this man ?
He is obviously not a fan of our way of life.
He is vulnerable.
Bin, I don't think we should over react.
Osama, Canadians will find you.
We have way more money than your cause, so F...your hat.
allan
6 years ago
Shadow boxing again Ron?
Colin
6 years ago
Canada could not have contributed much more than the ships that are already there, and specialists units like engineers, Comm’s. It would have been a token force and likely centred around Basra in conjunction with the Brits.
Fait
I have noticed that when people talk about the DU ammunition that they use figures based on total weight of ammunition shipped. The DU component used in tank rounds is about 10% or less of total weight.
For the 25mm bushmaster and 30mm Gatling gun it is about 15% of weight.
For the tanks, the DU penetrator Sabot round would have only been 50% of the ammo load for the initial part of the war, and is only useful for anti-armour as it has no explosive content. Basically it is a DU composite dart.
After the collapse of the Iraqi army, the loadout for US tanks is almost strictly High Explosive Anti-tank (HEAT) and MPAT rounds neither contain DU.
For the smaller weapons the DU rounds was used in a sequence of 1 for every 5 rds. It is my understanding that for the smaller rounds they are not using the DU round presently as there is no armour threat, although I am not 100% sure on this.
Any DU problems would be concentrated around vehicle destroyed by the rounds and these are hauled away and treated as contaminated waste.
There are far greater environmental effects there, such as suspended fecal matter and poorly maintained vehicles. Not to mention the huge environmental impacts from Saddam’s burning of the oil wells, draining of the swamps and basic environmental mismanagement.
clubofrome
6 years ago
Sorry, my fault. Ron and I met yesterday at the safe injection site for lunch. Ron was last seen freebasing Tory blue book policy.
nightbloom
6 years ago
allan - I think you've succeeded in proving my point - the war lacked moral validity (dare I call it "immoral"??) but the legalistic arguments don't really wash (anymore than the legalistic arguments that were marshalled to justify it). The only people who buy into either side of that coin are already converted for other reasons.
As for neo-Realism, just look it up. Kenneth Waltz, Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr are the annointed demigods of this particular school.
Coyote - You're just funny. And not very original. Someone already tried that slur, and then kindly retracted it. Identity politics don't wash with me, so you'll have to find a different way to get under my skin.
I'll address the Korean War separately, because it illustrates something important.
Yammer
6 years ago
I don't think there is a lot we could have done, militarily, to help the US war effort. I don't know what the Poles are doing over there, for example.
I suppose we could have joined the "Coalition of the Willing" and contributed something in the way of people and materiel, but, again, would it have made a substantial difference? Seems to me that the US has pretty much half their army over there already.
The idea that we should support in order to get breaks on softwood lumber is grotesque, the two issues should have nothing to do with one another. We should resist that kind of trading, especially when one of the articles is soldiers' lives.
But I don't agree that the US will continue to suffer from this, ultimately. "Blowback" is happening; but protest is healthy.
nightbloom
6 years ago
The legal ambivalence surrounding the American-led intervention in the Korean peninsula is frequently downplayed by liberal internationalists, if they even mentioned it at all. That’s because most of them are (were) converts to the original cause of the intervention for non-legal (ideological and moral) reasons.
::First precondition::
You will recall that an anomalous situation had been created in the UN Security Council due to the Soviets’ boycott of its sessions since January 1950 to protest the refusal to grant Beijing’s newly-installed Communist masters the ‘China’ seat.
::The American “green lightâ€::
In an unlucky coincidence reminiscent of US Ambassador April Glaspie’s inadvertent (or misinterpreted) “green light†to Saddam Hussein prior to his invasion of Kuwait, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in a January 12th 1950 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, specifically omitted South Korea when outlining America’s “military defense perimeter†in the Far East. The omission was widely publicized and went uncorrected.
North Korea acts:
In June 1950, 100,000 North Koreans with guns poured across the 38th parallel and took Seoul within two days (June 27). That same day, the UNSC (still without the Soviets) adopted a resolution to assist the Republic of Korea (South Korea) to repel the invasion. By this point, Truman had already instructed MacArthur to provide the South Korean army with naval and close air support, and two days later 2 U.S. infantry battalions arrived on the peninsula from Japan (June 29). Truman. was motivated by the belief that South Korea’s action was a Moscow-inspired probe of the West’s political will, much like the tests that had been essayed in Europe. As a precautionary measure, the U.S. Seventh Fleet was interposed between China and Taiwan, and the U.S. swung into full anti-Communist mode.
As a result, the hawkish interpretation of George Kennan’s Containment principle prevailed. To be clear, recent scholarship on the (now open) Soviet archives has confirmed that the North Korean invasion had in fact been cleared with the Kremlin. As with Tsarist Russia, Stalin’s USSR dearly desired access to warm water ports, which a client state on the Korean peninsula could have furnished. Regimes change – geopolitical imperatives are a little less transient.
::The American initiative::
On July 4th the UNSC (still without the Soviets) officially authorized the UN Expeditionary Force, with MacArthur in command, and granted it a 2-dimensional mandate “to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security.†The second component was generally assumed to mean that diplomatic talks would begin in an effort to stabilize the situation once South Korean forces had been pushed back above the 38th parallel.
Stay with me – here comes the illegal part....
nightbloom
6 years ago
::Fudging the mandate::
By the end of September MacArthur had pushed South Korean troops north of the 38th and retook Seoul (killing or capturing about 50,000 North Korean soldiers in the process). One could reasonably assume that the second half of the UN mandate – the part about restoring international peace – would now be implemented.
Not.
The complete rout of North Korean forces and the open opportunity this seemed to represent elicited ubiquitous premature ejaculations among America’s decision makers.
However, chastened by their blunder in having failed to resume their seat at the UNSC in order to halt the initial UN mandate to expel North Korean troops from South Korea, the Soviets hastily repaired to their chair in time for the August 1st session.
Faced with an open march due North to the Yalu River, coitus interruptus at this juncture was not an option for the red blooded Americans. Yet the UN Charter is unequivocal and exlicit: The General Assembly has no decision-making power, let alone any competence over military interventions or their mandates. Yet in order to circumvent the Soviet veto in the Security Council, the U.S. pushed a resolution through the UN General Assembly on October 7th authorizing General MacArthur to “take all appropriate measure to insure a stable situation in the whole of Korea[/B]†[my emphasis]. The resolution lacked the force of law, yet provided the U.S. with the fig leaf it needed to send its troops over the 38th parallel (which it did October 9th).
Pyongyang was occupied three weeks later, and only the Yalu River separated U.S. troops from China’s client-state of Manchuria. This was in spite of the Chinese explicit warning to Washington not to cross the 38th parallel (issues October 2nd). After America went ahead anyway, the Chinese attacked with overwhelming numbers (November 26, 1950), pushed the UN Expeditionary Force back across the 38th (late December) and took Seoul (January 4th, 1951). The whole thing started to fall apart on the American's, MacArthur began to push constitutional boundaries (remember the Midway meeting between General and President) and the rest is, as they say, history.
It should be noted that CANADA induced seizures in Washington when the government of Louis St. Laurent (with Pearson as Secretary of State for External Affairs) publicly criticized this opportunistic expansion of the Korean War. We're no toadie - in fact, we've bucked the Americans whenever in really mattered.
So that's the story behind the legal ambivalence of the Korean War.
ripponfalls
6 years ago
It would have o.k., becaues Stockwell Day probably doesn't even know where Iraq is... the boys could have gone ANYWHERE!
R. Smiley
redrivergirl
6 years ago
Ron, think about it. Osama is either long dead, or in a SA palace somewhere. The gov't is using his ghost for political gain.
The guy can cart around a dialysis machine but can't come up with the state of the art video camera?
lynn
6 years ago
Much agree, redrivergirl, Osama (and this is not a defence of him) is just a convenient Bad Santa now for the US to make magically appear when it is convenient for their imperialist aims...setting up conditions, including the prerequisite ambience of fear necessary to justify their planned attack on Iran.
That's the problem now, hard to tell who the real terrorists are...or how far the US neo-cons will go, including masked attacks on their own country to get what they want....nothing is really beyond the realm of possibility anymore.
allan
6 years ago
nightbloom, you obviously have a better read of the Korean theatre than I do, so I accept your points on that dispute.
But please, neo-realism? I don't care if the people who dreamt that one up have a dozen PhD. apiece.
It remains excuseville to me. In fact, it certainly seems like an excuse to keep a belligerant military force ready to beat the pulp out of anyone who looks the wrong way.
I know there are those who think we're all terrorists just waiting for the right chance, but unless the world moves away from that and onto a more sane appreciation that humanity can evolve into a more peaceful reality, we certainly are doomed.
I'll bet Rumsfeld is a very keen student of this madness.
Neorealism sounds an awful lot like old fashioned hatred, distrust and fear of the dark among other really dangerous things.
nightbloom
6 years ago
Neo-Realism's basic theory of international relations is that the traditional nation-state is the nexus of decision-making activity, that these nation-states operate in an anarchic environment, and that nation-states will conduct their policy according to a rational evaluation of their self-interest.
This doesn't mean to say that states can't sometimes act irrationally, or that liberal internationalist structures like the UN or NGOs can't play a role....Rather, neo-Realists argue that the above conditions constitute the underlying norm to which the international system will always tend.
redrivergirl
6 years ago
So true, Lynn. And, they are trying to grab the news cycle. Releasing the 'tape' and 'refusing' a truce, allowed them to say the equivalent of 'we'll never surrender' - see what a wonderful job we're doing at protecting you. It's just so transparent.
nightbloom
6 years ago
allan - I should add that what you've said is a popular criticism of neo-Realism.
It's not "hatred" or anything like that, per se, but it is definitely amoral. It doesn not recognize values as we understand the concept.
I'm definitely not saying that's the way things should be...I'm saying that's simply the way the U.S. conducts its foreign policy.
clubofrome
6 years ago
My two cents on US/Iran
You have to consider China and Russia in this scenario. The big picture; China is en route to super power status and require energy to fuel this growth.
No, this time the US will have to play by the rules. China is also involved in their nuclear program.
Given the nature of the Bush Administration’s rush to war in Iraq in 2003, where China had a major stake in oil development, and the subsequent US blocking of other Chinese attempts at securing energy independence including Unocal, it is not surprising that Beijing is taking extraordinary measures to secure its long-term oil and gas supply.
Energy is the Achilles Heel of China’s economic growth. Beijing knows that only too well. So does Washington. A decision to take military action against Iran would pull a far larger cast of actors into the fray than Iraq.
Source: GlobalResearch.ca
Maybe this is the energy equivalent of the showdown at the OK corral!? The whole mess reminds me of day & night long Risk games where at the end it was total destruction! Beer and pizza boxes every where....
Colin
6 years ago
The guy can cart around a dialysis machine but can't come up with the state of the art video camera?
My understanding is that Osama’s long time doctor was recently interviewed and dismissed the whole dialysis thing as a media invention.
Since the NWF is not even under government control, getting a dialysis machine into a the area would not be difficult and I certainly don’t discount that he is alive and living there. Keep in mind that a good portion of Pakistan’s military is sympathetic to the Taliban (A group that Pakistan Intelligence basically equipped and trained) and hostile to the US supported government.
Despite the fair size ME community in South America, I doubt very much that he has moved there. If not in Pakistan, then likely in Bangladesh or Iran as a guest of the revolutionary guards. He wants to be in a place that is safe yet has communications and numbers of travellers would not draw attention.
The latest tape had reference to events in November if I remember correctly, the timing is interesting as Pakistan has indicated that 3-4 top level AQ were killed in the last airstrike, those people will be hard to replace and bringing in junior people will be a security risk for him. I also suspect that he has been injured, hence his reluctance to show himself (also security issues)
While it remains a small possibility that he is dead, I don’t personally buy it. He may also be a “guest†of the above mention Pakistani intelligence, who may keep him or dispose of him depending on his usefulness to them.
redrivergirl
6 years ago
This is ridiculous. It was well established he has serious kidney disease. Not to mention I am an avid news follower from many sources and have never heard this. But, I do not listen to Fox, and intellectually insulting in their perspective, radio media types.
If he's alive, he's living in SA in luxury.
However, AQ is not organized like the admin wants us to think. I personally would toss a coin as to the veracity of any statement from the B admin. The boy who called wolf and all that...
Even without the above points it is easy to see this is a scam. It's transparent.
redrivergirl
6 years ago
And, if God Forbid there is another attack, it proves nothing except there is an enemy. Which there is and can not be denied. It does not confirm a single thing the admin is saying.
redrivergirl
6 years ago
I think the tape is part of a push to 'defend' NSA wiretapping and it is either inauthentic, or woefully past dated.
lynn
6 years ago
Interesting piece clubofrome: I think the long term strategy of the neocons has always been to eventually surround China. Israel, India both nuclear powers. If they are linked via Iraq, Syria, and Iran (PNAC's grand obsession) then Amerika has south Asia, defended at its endpoints by nuclear weapons....(plus those pipelines across Afghanistan)... and all the strategic fuel the US lusts for.
But you're right, it presents the scariest scenario ever imaginable...
Yammer
6 years ago
Containment of the world by capitalist "Amerika" and friends is hardly the scariest scenario.
The scariest scenario is that the caliphate reunites and can challenge the west with strategic weapons as well as the minor irritant of suicide bombers.
allan
6 years ago
Yammer, that all depends on what scares you.
Right now a short little guy from Texas who played hookey from most of his responsibilities until he was well into his 40s is just about the scariest person I know.
The west can only be challenged when it tries to take resources away from others, so I'd suggest the best thing would be a live and let live approach rather than I'm the biggest son of a bitch on the block and so I'm the boss.
I suspect most Arab people can be just as muleheaded as most of us in the west are, especially when it appears someone plans to steal them blind.
lynn
6 years ago
Yammer, it is the strange bedfellows that Amerika's imperialist lust for oil is creating... China, the Middle East.... tension mounting between Russia and the Ukraine over the suspension of gas...leading to that showdown clubo is alluding to above.
DPL
6 years ago
A long time ago I was in the area near the Vietnam war and watched B52's take off less than a minute a pary to bomb the country into ruin. The US spent a lot of lives and tons of money and the end result was a helicopter on top of the embassy picking up the last few to get out of the county. Tourism is a big business there now, ad the US is still looking for some of their dead. Flash ahead to the Gulf War. Canada was there as it was a UN operation and it was stopped when the Iraq troops got back into their own country. The road back was a bloodbath and not many pictures are shown of the last run back down the highway The numbers of dead on that one hightway was staggering. Want to talk war, go find some fottage of that day, or the maswsive bombing of anything in sight.
Up pops George and his often lying friends. We saw an ex general lying at the UN. Iraq could stike with weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, Yellow cake was being bought by Iraq for nuclear adventures, I could go on but won't.
Chretien did the right thing, I'm no Liberal but he probrably knew, those who want war somehow never get there.I respected him for saying no and refused to change his position. Cheney the biggest hawk got about 6 draft deferrals. George spent a few months in the reserve.
If Canada has to fight, they will but under UN control not some wing nut from Washington. A number of Canadians have given their lives doing thing their government wants them to do. Now we have a large number of troops in Aphganistan. The house never debates their involvement in this latest adventure, Oh it's peace keeping. Like hell it is, its a local dirty war, fought with lousy equipment. Very skillfully by the troops from canada. And it won't be over soon.
Three guys are in hospital in Germany , wounded. One guy has lost most of one leg and maybe will lose part of the other. Any of you hawks and for that matter Harper should go see those guys, and arrange jobs and pensions for their life after the service. and for the dead ones, go see their families and assist them in the grief. Find one veteran that doesn't say. Never again. Well again has come around a number of times since WW2.and will come around again. You want to talk war, go join the US army, they will show you war. You might get killed, or worse wounded, but if it's what you want, go for it. They have a large dollection of body bags and one size fits all
Colin
6 years ago
Redrivergirl
I will try to find the article, I believe it was either a French newspaper or a Arab website
About the UN
Lets consider the makeup of the UN, the majority of it’s members are dictatorships that routinely practice torture and have long histories of oppressing any opposition in their countries. Each one of these countries get the same voting rights as a country that practices democracy. So will a dictator vote in favour of overthrowing another dictator? Not likely, unless of course there is a direct benefit to their regime.
The UN has not sanctioned and taken part in a major conflict since Korea. The UN dithered will Rwanda spiraled into hell and is doing the same in Dafur.
Let us not forget about Myamar, China and Tibet, to name a few.
Peacekeeping as Canadian love to imagine it, is dead, the “Disney†version that we talk about only works between two nation states who want to avoid war, but don’t trust each other. What the world needs now is peace making and it is messy and dangerous, as most of the areas where you would go are involved in civil wars, sort akin to the dread that police officers have of attending domestic disputes.
allan
6 years ago
Colin, what the world needs now is peace. Plain and simple.
Turn off the military view of the world once in a while and you might actually understand why some people are sick and tired of all the excuses used to start yet another Peacemaking venture, as you seem to prefer to call hostile military invasions.
Yes, I've read your neorealism and it's all head in the cloud stuff so as to avoid realspeak like dead civilians.
I believe we got the full Disney version in the 1990s invasion of Iraq when we were shown all those computer-guided direct hits.
Disney always had a habit of keeping the ugly scenes, like "collateral damage" out of it's movies.
In fact, the truth was most of those precision weapons missed their intended targets.
Perhaps if your military pals to the south had anything but desire for complete mid-east domination, peacekeeping might be a more tenable option.
But when nations are being "bombed back into the stone age," as the US bragged of doing in the '90s, there is little chance of calm, diplomatic problem solving, is there?
Also where do you get your numbers to show "the majority of"(UN), "members are dictatorships."
As far as dithering is concerned, put the blame where it belongs, on the secuity council on which aggressives like the U.S. and Britan share much of the blame for inaction.
The US certainly got out of Africa fast after a brief firefight.
Why?
Because it was unpopular back home to put American lives at risk to help out poor, impoverished nations.
But find a good oil field or two and guess who's coming to dinner and staying?
Colin
6 years ago
Allan
“World peace†is a nice fuzzy statement, what price are you willing to pay for it?
Does World peace mean to you; No western nations involved? Because that what it seems to me when I hear people talking.
Without nations becoming involved expect to see more Rwanda’s, Kosvo’s and Congo’s. Even if you stopped all fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today, there will still be wars going on that most people have not heard of.
Do you plan to go to Somalia to discuss world peace with a AK-47 toting kid high on khat?
The Taliban beheads a teacher because they teach little girls how to read, your solution is to pull out and let them slaughter anyone that objects to their reality. I not so unrealistic to think that in 5 years everything will be wonderful. What we are doing is planting the seeds that will take 20 years to bear fruit.
It’s a unpleasant world out there, you need to have a mix of Soldiers, diplomats, engineers, doctors and NGO’s. Every situation is going to require a different mix.
If you want to experiment, why don’t you run locally on a platform that preaches disbanding the local police and putting that money into social programs? Because that what you are basically saying that you want to do at a world level.
Whether you agree or not with the US/UK invasion of Iraq, the fact that it happened has ensured that no nation state is going to directly challenge the US for at least a decade, hopefully by that time China will have come to an agreement with Taiwan or China will be to busy with internal strife.
China and SE Asia are all busy rearming and both India and China are busy building and training a deep water navy. It is much better that they know the US tiger is real and has teeth, then to think it is a paper tiger that will not respond, that would lead to a very nasty showdown with lots of people dead.
Colin
6 years ago
By the way, I do agree with your criticisms of the US Air Force, they generally cause more trouble than they are worth. The rest of the US military ground forces do a decent job and do their best to limit civilian casualties, despite the fact that their opponents like to wear civilian clothes and use hospitals and place of worship as fighting positions.
Colin
6 years ago
As far as my figures go, take the list of UN member states and look them up on Amnesty International and the CIA fact book webpage. AI will give you their record and the Factbook page will give a good breakdown on types of government.
As always people love to talk about oil, so why does the US support Israel? They don’t have any oil worth talking about?
Colin
6 years ago
The US got out of Somalia because Clinton & co. made a hash of it. They didn’t want the US to land tanks as that would be seen as “aggressive†despite the fact that the Pakistani’s did just that and used those tanks to help rescue the trapped US soldiers, not to mention the Malaysian who also suffered causalities that day. There was no military or tactical reason for the US to pull out, it just that the Democrats didn’t give a crap about some poor black failed nation.
allan
6 years ago
Colin, there is nothing fuzzy about world peace.
No one is naive enough to think there will not be disputes, but history has pretty much proven if you plan for war that's exactly what you get.
As far as western nations not being involved, I'd suggest the only western nation pivotal to most of the world's troubles is the US.
The British are in there yapping away as well, but most of us appreciate the old lioness has lost most of her teeth and now pretty much roars only on command from its new protector.
If the US wasn't in Afghanistan and Iraq for one strategic reason, most of the world's other hot spots might be able to get the attention needed.
And as much as you dislike the UN, if the Americans were to ever stop trying to subvert its goals, it might be one hell of a lot quicker in reaching needed decisions and taking the action you lament it hasn't.
Again the US and Britan are a guilty as anyone for stalling things at teh seci=urity council level.
But no, the US comes to the world body and then blatantly lies to other members about WMD, Iraq's links to bin Ladin and its purchase of material for nuclear weapons.
When it doesn't get it's way, suddenly the UN majority is comprised of a bunch of dictators who are only looking after their own interests.
Of course, Haliburton et/al are all non-profits involved in humanitarian aid and claims of violent torture, rape etc., are just bleeding heart liberals who think children should not be abused by a superpower.
Your attempt at an analogy between U.S. invasionary forces and our local police force are just off the wall. It's a very ripe red herring you opt for there.
Yes, the Taliban are nasty people who do behead people. But cruise missles do the very same only the missiles behead (or the equivalant), entire communities at once.
Are you suggesting it's more humane if the weapon isn't actually in the hands of the beligerant when the killing happens?
Or is it ok because an American gets a paycheque to produce the weapon. Someone's gotta do it, right?
You may well feel very secure that no one will be able to directly challenge the U.S.'s power for a decade. I suspect a majority of the world isn't going to sleep better knowing that.
Besides, it didn't take a foriegn military power to bring us 9-11. It certainly wasn't a military power that brought London's transportation services to a deadly stop a couple of months ago either.
And, as for China, India and south-east Asian countries ramping up their own military strengths, what would you expect them to do when a rampaging elephant is smashing everything in sight just down the block a ways?
I find it quite telling you concerns for a despotic little fart of a place like Taiwan seem to outway the loss of life that has come about as America pursues it's goal of controlling the world's oil supplies.
I'd recommend you stop looking through the world simply as a westerner. Even the vast majority of westerners, including Americans, are strongly opposed to this latest energy crusade.
You are mired in the same war mentality as American military planners and won't escape it until you give up your addiction to following blood sports.
allan
6 years ago
Colin, the announcement yesterday by Israel that it is planning an attack on Iran because of concerns Iran could be building nukes tells an awful lot about why the US supports Israel.
You are right? There is no oil to speak of in Israel, but there certainly are nuclear weapons and a very beligerant government that gets billions in US support annually.
Israel, like Taiwan, is almost completely dependant on US dollars and weaponry.
If it wasn't, Israel's flaunting of UN resolutions would have halted decades ago and a real and lasting peace might have actually been worked out by diplomacy.
Frankly, as long as the life of a non-American appears to be cheaper than a barrel of oil, I'm not optimistic we'll ever have peace anywhere.
Colin
6 years ago
Well Allen
It is clear we never going to agree. I sleep well at night knowing that the US is our neighbour, they are not perfect, but far better than the rest of the choices.
You also don’t need cruise missiles to kill people, machetes work quite well we found out in Rwanda as the UN dithered. But of course anything that happens in the world is the US fault, it’s a nice easy to package viewpoint.
If the Israelis followed every UN resolution, there would be no Israel state left. The Jews know what happened last time they depended on the goodwill of the world and won’t make that mistake again. At least Israel does not go around talking about wiping other countries off the face of the globe.
The police analogue is quite pertinent.
allan
6 years ago
Colin, I think you were a bit hasty with that last sentence.
Yes, Israeli politicians speak all the time of wiping out Palistinians and have been as combative toward local Arab states as those states have been.
Israel is, in essense, a rogue state, much like its patron, the US.
It now looks like GEE W. Bush and gang now realize they are not going to be able to simply manufacture another snow job on why they need to invade yet another member of the "axis of evil."
So time to call in the farm team who just happen to have all the same latest technology and weapons the US has.
No doubt Israel will continue working for it's master at least until Israeli progressives get organized enough to turf all those old terrorists from the late 40s and early 50s who continue to cling to power.
Colin
6 years ago
Allen I was trying to respond with my 13 month old daughter clambering all over me and yelling in my ear as I was not paying enough attention to her.
There is nothing “rogue†about Israel, in fact it has been quite moderate considering the fact that most of it neighbours have tried to wipe it out several times.
The Israelis have always recognized that there would need to be a Palestinian state, just a lot of disagreement over how it should look. Do you think the Arabs would bother to negotiate with the Israelis if the positions were reversed? Not likely.
Invading Iran would be stupidest thing to do and incredible unlikely. Even though they could defeat the Iranian army and reach Tehran, they would not be able to hold any ground. There are far better ways to contain Iran then a invasion. Destruction of their oil handling facilities would cripple them as they do not have significant monetary reserves. Also the sanctions against travel by their citizens and diplomats will also put significant pressure on them as they depend on the hard currency they bring back. The key would be to try to impact the government will maintaining the sympathy of the people. That may be the hardest thing to do. Sanctions will only work if all western countries honour them.
Hamas still has not dropped the destruction of Israel from it’s charter, if they get elected they will have to decide which direction they wish to go, they will be forced to deal with Israel if they are the government and it will be very interesting to see what happens.
maikeru
6 years ago
Thank you Colin for expressing so many sensible comments herein.
Allen re "history has pretty much proven that if you plan for war that is exactly what you get"
History reveals the opposite is true.
Colin
6 years ago
Liddell Hart summoned up nicely, “To achieve peace, study war†In other words understand what was the sequence of events that led to wars and then you should be able to interrupt the process leading to the next, but it will not be enough to interrupt the process unless you can substitute an reasonable alternative to resolve the issues.
allan
6 years ago
Maikeru, could you please give a few examples of planning for war as a means of successfully not participating in one?.
It's ok, you can go as far back into history as you wish to find your examples.
But please don't drag out some tainted old religious tracts and try to foist them off as proof of anything other than creative writing.
Colin, get your head out of the war comics. Your 13-month-old daughter deserves a better start in life than to be swamped in that stuff before she's even weaned.
maikeru
6 years ago
Colin
I like the quote, and agree with what you derive from it to the extent of common ground that exists for parties to conflict..
In the case of the Iraq (and imho), the 'reasonable alternative' offered up by the American administration to forestall invasion was for Saddam Hussein - and by extension his immediate family - to remove himself from leadership of that country.
It is certain that was not considered a 'reasonable alternative' by Saddam Hussein.
I am quite convinced it would not have led to peaceful co-existence of the various factions inside Iraq - let alone resolution of issues which brought about the rise of Ba'athist control in Iraq.
Frankly, I believe that the divide between the current incarnation of ME states - other than Israel and perhaps Lebanon - and free world states will more likely to be bridged by Clausewitz' s 'Diplomacy by other means' than Lennon's 'Imagine' before any lasting Peace is achieved.
The outright 'imposition' of democracy in Iraq is a 'reasonable alternative' to Saddam's rule - to me - yet one has to look no further than comments made herein the thread to know that democracy cannot guarantee peaceful consensus.
maikeru
6 years ago
Allan
Switzerland.
How much history have you actually studied ?
One of the the most, if not the most, cogent analysis of events leading up to WW2 was the 6 volume History of the Second World War, written by Winston S. Churchill. Churchill made his living by his pen, and few authors are as well spoken - and well spoken of - as he.
He was one of the 4 major statesmen of the era (Roosevelt, Stalin and Hitler the others) and the only one who wrote copious memoirs.
Had Stanley Baldwin begun earnest preparation for war in 1933, World War in Europe would not have occurred.
Had Roosevelt's 'quarantine of aggressors' been heeded in 1937, and war preparation begun in earnest in America, Japan would not have attacked Pearl Harbour.
Unfortunately, as it turned out, both democracies were hamstrung by those convinced that preparation for war would itself have triggered war rather than prevented it.
Finally, and to illustrate my point, I will say to you that if you persist in making disparaging remarks about those whom you address here they will be met in kind, and you are too poor a wordsmith to effectively counter the well deserved belittlement of your opinions.
allan
6 years ago
Maikeru, your language is something else.
"The outright imposition of democracy in Iraq is a reasonable alternative to Saddam's rule."
Really?
According to who, the Nazis?
Now before you get too cheeky about the tone of comments on here, my friend, perhaps you can tell me where all these examples of peaceful consensus are being reached.
And, if you could find it in the middle east, in any country, whether they masquarade as a democracy or not, that would be even more illuminating.
As Lennon said "give peace a chance," but then I guess the subtleties of that are lost on armchair warriors, aren't they?.
allan
6 years ago
Give me some of the that "well deserved belittlement" anytime cowboy, but don't quote that old racist reprobate (Churchill), to me.
Frankly I found George Wallace to be a more interesting racist than that pompous ass.
I have absolutely no respect for that man regardless of the propaganda he churned out or the pap that has been spewed since by those who want to continue justifying and defending war and treatment of other nations.
I find it ironic in fact that you quote him in reference to Iraq since he referred to Iraqis as "savages" and basically wrote them off as such in helping to carve up the middle east, didn't he?
maikeru
6 years ago
I'm just preparing my impromptu remarks.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- Winston Churchill -
DPL
6 years ago
For all the hawks on this site I suggest. Go on down to the recruiting place and sign up. I did my 22 years. I ran into recruits a few months ago who were older getting in that I had been getting out. If they won't take you and you really want to be big men, cross the border and sign there. They can't get enough recruits and are holding their national Guards folks over the length of their tours. National guards wern't involved over seas as recently as desert storm one. Clinton got out of somalia becasue a helicopter got shot down and some guys got slaughtered trying to get to them by truck.
General Dallaire went basically nuts after that little armed conflict.He is a strong man and survived. The whole operation would have ended if not for daily flights by C130's which got shot at quite regularly.
You might like the smell the killing and all, that sort of stuff. A lot of guys come back from thsoe sort of hell holes and are never the same again.
Now the three guys are back from their base in Afganistan ,it will be of interest to see just how long the guy who lost one leg and part of another remains in the army. Or the guy with part of his scull removed to stop brain swelling. Oh you are a hero, hand in your stuff and you are out of here. It ain't TV shows, its real life and folks die doing things for their elected officials who never ever saddle up. I unfortuantly saw half my course die in one aircraft, in a trainig accident in this country. The guys are just as dead. Try doing 5 or 6 militry funerals in one day. It focuses the mind pretty quickly.
maikeru
6 years ago
Okay...ready.
- memorable quotes by that old racist reprobate (Churchill)
It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism.
Out of intense complexities intense simplicities emerge.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.
They are decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.
Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war.
When I am abroad, I always make it a rule never to criticize or attack the government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home.
When the eagles are silent the parrots begin to jabber.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
The problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult.
-------------------
- original quotes by that 'pacifist' (Allan
I'm a bit confused here.
maikeru
6 years ago
DPL
Heck, things have changed in the Canadian Armed Forces since you were a young hawk. They now take doves too - girls even !
It’s heartening to hear from someone like yourself about some of the inherant dangers of joining the military.
I imagine only the most dedicated of hawks would have stayed in as long as you did, especially when those in the Canadian Military have had to endure the steady erosion of the hard-won respect and goodwill the Canadian Armed Forces were bequeathed by our forebears.
allan
6 years ago
Maikeru, what is your point?
I put forward arguments. You don't like them but obviously can't argue against them so you try ridicule.
Pathetic.
I'm a bit confused here,you say.
What can I say other than I don't think it's a bit and most of it appears to be self-induced.
Oh, now I get it, You have just provided me with some of your "well deserved belittlement."
Gees, how'd I miss it?