Closer Anglosphere Alignment needed

[Remiel]

I thought you were a lawyer, jbg. If vigilanteism is wrong on the micro level, why do you advocate it at the macro level?

[ft.niagara]

You're statement contains an oxymoron, jbg. You cannot police by breaking the law.

Better break a few arbitrary "laws" that protect serious wrongdoers than die.

You can not make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. To get rid of the infestation, you have to drain the swamp.....

[ft.niagara]

I thought you were a lawyer, jbg. If vigilanteism is wrong on the micro level, why do you advocate it at the macro level?

If your life is on the line Remiel, would you hesitate to pull the trigger?

[jbg]

You're statement contains an oxymoron, jbg. You cannot police by breaking the law.

Better break a few arbitrary "laws" that protect serious wrongdoers than die.

You can not make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. To get rid of the infestation, you have to drain the swamp.....

Ft. Niagara, I concur heartily. In fact, WW II was not won until the German people were thoroughly demoralized by the Dresden raids, and the inability of the fanatical Nazis to protect them. If one tries to fight a war too slowly, too surgically, with a perpetual view of winning hearts and minds after victory, victory will never happen. The only way that happens is to fight strong and hard. If that means somewhat messier than surgical strikes, so be it.

What deprived both the Israeli retaliation in Lebanon and the US attack on Iraq of support was the perception that the wars were being fought in an aimless, indirect manner geared more to the feelings of the UN and the enemy than to success.

[Higgly]

Israel launched a pre-emptive attack...

Exackly.

And what word is that "Canadian" for?

You come here to debate politics and you diss my nationality? Amazing.

[Higgly]

In all fairness to Bush, the US has greater responsibilities as the world's sole superpower to police disorderly areas. Saddam needed to be gone.

Well Paul Wolfowitz, Binyamin Netenyahu and Richard Perle certainly thought so. If you were to ask the average Iraqi refugee struggling to make a life in Jordan and Syria, what do you think they would say? Come to think of it, what do you think the average Iraqi family still in Iraq might say?

By the way, this might be a good time to hear from those many who say that Arab nations like Syria and Jordan do not care about their Arab brethern.

Cindy Sheehan is right. Bring on the war crimes trials.

[bradco]

You're statement contains an oxymoron, jbg. You cannot police by breaking the law.

Better break a few arbitrary "laws" that protect serious wrongdoers than die.

hmm this rests on the notion that you would die if Saddam wasnt taken out which is false. As far as policing disorderly areas it is likely that had the US stayed the SC course and argued that Saddam needed to be taken out for humanitarian purposes he could have done so within the law. The problem is as much as Bush and his supporters argue humanitarian purposes now they played no role in their pre-war decisions. It is only after their justifications were proven false that they started singing the "humanitarian" song. Your claim of US responsibility for policing disorderly areas doesnt stand in the case of Iraq. They never made such justifications before the war. It was WMD, self protection, and vague comparisons of Saddam and terrorism. Furthermore, Iraq is more disordered now than it was pre-war. I hate to be pessimistic but I truly feel that having anything that resembles order in Iraq is years...possibly decades away.

NOTE: even the Bush administration knows that the Bush Doctrine of preemptive self-defense does not stand legally and did not use it as an official legal argument within the Security Council, rather relying on an arguement of implied authorization. There is no place in international law for preemptive justifications for going to war.

[Higgly]

NOTE: even the Bush administration knows that the Bush Doctrine of preemptive self-defense does not stand legally...

Have we got that on tape? If not, maybe we need to sweat him a little more...

[jbg]

You come here to debate politics and you diss my nationality? Amazing.

I have the greatest respect for Canadians actually. I'm fast losing my respect for you.

[gerryhatrick]

Isn't there a topic on this already?

[mcqueen625]

My view, which should surprise no one, is that Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Israel should be closely aligned. The world today is being shaped into two conflicting civilizations. This has been happening minimally for decades, but more probably for centuries, and has now become most evident since September 11, 2001. One civilization, led by Judeo-Christian ethics, values life. Individual rights and freedoms, equality of the sexes, and peace amongst nations are pillars upon which this half of the world stands.

The other civilization holds very different ideals: the glorification of death and war, totalitarian control of the masses, and oppression of women. The latter civilization sees the former as a direct threat to its way of life and is willing to sacrifice its own children to destroy the other. This clash of civilizations is being fought on many fronts, including the battlefield. But for most of us non-soldier-types, the war is being fought in the recesses of our own conscience.

Many world leaders, like President Bush and Prime Minister Blair and Harper, have identified this clearly as a fight against evil. But there are others, many of whom are influential in the media, who don't believe that the values of the Western world are "objectively good." Reuters news service refused to call the September 11 attacks "terrorism," finding that even too much of a moral stretch.

This clash calls upon us all to must make a clear choice. Are we confident in our own values and morals? Do we know that they are objectively good and thus worth defending and fighting for?

I have often wondered why many Canadians lack the self-confidence in its own democratic values to stand up for them. A review of these threads reveals almost a self-hatred, though, through the aegis of anti-American sentiment, particularly on such issues as Iraq and the Middle East. It is time for Canada to stand up for its own, core values.

I read somewhere. I think it was in the Canadian Free Press that having Canadian morals and values actually means having no morals or values at all. It's what feels good at the time. I think therer is a lot of truth in that statement, starting with our Supreme Court and running downhill through the Parlaiment of this country and the Senate.

[Higgly]

You come here to debate politics and you diss my nationality? Amazing.

I have the greatest respect for Canadians actually. I'm fast losing my respect for you.

The sooner the better, jbg.

I read somewhere. I think it was in the Canadian Free Press that having Canadian morals and values actually means having no morals or values at all. It's what feels good at the time. I think therer is a lot of truth in that statement, starting with our Supreme Court and running downhill through the Parlaiment of this country and the Senate.

If we didn't have a Supreme Court, we would have a monolithic form of government, which is the most vulnerable in times of crisis and to abuse by a majority party. Thank heavens for the Supreme Court, I say.

[Black Dog]

You can not make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. To get rid of the infestation, you have to drain the swamp.....

...

If your life is on the line Remiel, would you hesitate to pull the trigger?

ft. niagra gets close to winning the prize for "Most Cliches in One Thread" but falls short. I think something along the lines of "We have to stick to our game plan and give 110%" would have pushed him over the top. Better luck next time.

Now we move on to our next category "Ahistorical ramblings" and jbg.

Ft. Niagara, I concur heartily. In fact, WW II was not won until the German people were thoroughly demoralized by the Dresden raids, and the inability of the fanatical Nazis to protect them.

Utter vacuity. The destruction of Germany's armed forces on the field of battle had a tad more to do with their losing the war than the alleged collapse of civilian morale. Indeed, many Germans held on to the belief, encouraged by Nazi propaganda, that a turnabout was imminent. The belief that Germany could win the war lived on even as the first Soveit tanks rolled into Berlin. As well, numerous first-person accounts of the war's aftermath speak of the German people's haughty arrogance and continued defiance of their conquerors.

If one tries to fight a war too slowly, too surgically, with a perpetual view of winning hearts and minds after victory, victory will never happen. The only way that happens is to fight strong and hard. If that means somewhat messier than surgical strikes, so be it.

Kinda depends on (a) what kind of war your fighting and ( what your objectives are. World War Two was total war: the clear goal being the destruction of the enemies armed forces and military infrastructure and their expulsion from territory captured in a war of aggression. Iraq, for example, is not the same scene at all. "Hearts and minds" are a pivotal component of a counterinsurgency campaign. If you're trying to stop an ideology, undertaking actions that feed the ideology is utterly counterproductive.

What deprived both the Israeli retaliation in Lebanon and the US attack on Iraq of support was the perception that the wars were being fought in an aimless, indirect manner geared more to the feelings of the UN and the enemy than to success.

What deprived the U.S. attack on Iraq of support was its pointlessness. What deprived Israel's attack on Lebanon of support was its arbitrariness. IOW, strategic decisons influenced the results of the campaigns (in the former case, a lack of post-war planning, in the latter, an over reilance on air power and a reluctance to puit troops at risk), but had little bearing on why they were unpopular. I have a hard time believing that a full-scale Israeli invasion of Lebanon would have garnered more support than the half-assed effort put forth.

[jbg]

Kinda depends on (a) what kind of war your fighting and ( what your objectives are. World War Two was total war: the clear goal being the destruction of the enemies armed forces and military infrastructure and their expulsion from territory captured in a war of aggression. Iraq, for example, is not the same scene at all. "Hearts and minds" are a pivotal component of a counterinsurgency campaign. If you're trying to stop an ideology, undertaking actions that feed the ideology is utterly counterproductive.

I'll acknowledge that sometimes you make some good points, even though we almost never agree. As much as I'd like the Iraq War not to become "total" it may have to be. Keeping Saddam in power was intolerable. Americans losing lives to warring Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds is also quite painful. If these people cannot take their disputes inside (to Parliament, to the ballot box) it may have to become "pox on their houses". Still, good points.

What deprived Israel's attack on Lebanon of support was its arbitrariness. IOW, strategic decisons influenced the results of the campaigns (in the former case, a lack of post-war planning, in the latter, an over reilance on air power and a reluctance to puit put troops at risk), but had little bearing on why they were unpopular. I have a hard time believing that a full-scale Israeli invasion of Lebanon would have garnered more support than the half-assed effort put forth.

Again, the West cannot be drawn into a "heads I win, tails you lose" asymetrical war. The decision, by "insurgents" to go to war must be made a serious one, which they'll mightily regret.

[Black Dog]

I'll acknowledge that sometimes you make some good points, even though we almost never agree. As much as I'd like the Iraq War not to become "total" it may have to be. Keeping Saddam in power was intolerable. Americans losing lives to warring Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds is also quite painful. If these people cannot take their disputes inside (to Parliament, to the ballot box) it may have to become "pox on their houses". Still, good points.

Iraq won't become a total war, nor is there any reason why it would. Taking a more heavy-handed approach is unlikely to defeat the insurgency, generate much support and would ultimately defeat the entire purpose of the invasion/occupation. The realistic assessment is that the violence will continue. Whether Americans continue to get caught up is beside the point. At best, the U.S. presence has no bearing on the level of violence: at worst, that presence acts as a catalyst for violence.

Again, the West cannot be drawn into a "heads I win, tails you lose" asymetrical asymmetrical war. The decision, by "insurgents" to go to war must be made a serious one, which they'll mightily regret.

The decision to go to war was made by the U.S. in 2003. The insurgency and sectarian violence was a predictable outcome. Are you suggesting the Iraqi people as a whole pay more of a price for your leadership's stupidity?

And again: if you're going to be an asshole and correct others' spelling, you'd better be sure yours is fucking flawless.

[jbg]

The decision to go to war was made by the U.S. in 2003. The insurgency and sectarian violence was a predictable outcome. Are you suggesting the Iraqi people as a whole pay more of a price for your leadership's stupidity?

Wouldn't it be so much better, for the world, for the common people to stop their leaders' stupidity? Then the US wouldn't have to mount the interventions you despise so much.

And again: if you're going to be an asshole and correct others' spelling, you'd better be sure yours is fucking flawless.

Go ahead and correct my spelling. Maibe wie shuld awl corect eech ohters speeelng erirs.

But so many here mis-spell harbour, labour, behaviour, ec. Should be harbor, labor, behavior. I get a red "squiggly" on my computer for all of those mis-spellings.

[Black Dog]

Wouldn't it be so much better, for the world, for the common people to stop their leaders' stupidity? Then the US wouldn't have to mount the interventions you despise so much.

In theory. But the "common people" have little sway over a nation's policy even in western democratic nations. What power do you think they have places where the state apparatus is brutally reppresive (as in most Middle Eastern regimes) or incapable of doing a damn thing (as in Iraq)? besides, the only U.S. interventions I despise are pointless wars of choice like the one against Iraq.

Go ahead and correct my spelling. Maibe wie shuld awl corect eech ohters speeelng erirs

Well, I hate to go all playground on you, but you started it. You can dish it out, but can't take it.

But so many here mis-spell harbour, labour, behaviour, ec. Should be harbor, labor, behavior. I get a red "squiggly" on my computer for all of those mis-spellings.

My Canadian Press style book right here tells me those "u" spellings are correct. Need I remind you this is a Canadian forum, and thus Canadian style would be the norm?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Wouldn't it be so much better, for the world, for the common people to stop their leaders' stupidity? Then the US wouldn't have to mount the interventions you despise so much.

In theory. But the "common people" have little sway over a nation's policy even in western democratic nations. What power do you think they have places where the state apparatus is brutally reppresive (as in most Middle Eastern regimes) or incapable of doing a damn thing (as in Iraq)? besides, the only U.S. interventions I despise are pointless wars of choice like the one against Iraq.

Go ahead and correct my spelling. Maibe wie shuld awl corect eech ohters speeelng erirs

Well, I hate to go all playground on you, but you started it. You can dish it out, but can't take it.

But so many here mis-spell harbour, labour, behaviour, ec. Should be harbor, labor, behavior. I get a red "squiggly" on my computer for all of those mis-spellings.

My Canadian Press style book right here tells me those "u" spellings are correct. Need I remind you this is a Canadian forum, and thus Canadian style would be the norm?

Agreed - and in line with this topic's theme we'd all agree that your "ou" spellings combined with a few turban-clad RCMPs pretty much sums up the strength of Canada's "identity"...

[gnam]

Agreed - and in line with this topic's theme we'd all agree that your "ou" spellings combined with a few turban-clad RCMPs pretty much sums up the strength of Canada's "identity"...

And your point is???

[gnam]

This shows that you do not understand the Jewish people. We are a people who adhere strongly to the rule of law, not the rule of man. Thus, we tend to align with similar groups and cultures. Thus, the alignment with the Anglosphere.

This is interesting. If this post is supposed to say something essential about the Jewish people then you are right, I do not understand the Jewish people.

It seems you owe an explanation here, since you are drawing on an unexplained distinction in order to demarcate 'jewishness' and its link with what you call the anglosphere.

IOW what is the rule of law as you understand it? How do you support the claim that the jewish people, and by extension the anglosphere (or similar groups and cultures to use your words), strongly adhere to it? Additionally, you should explain what you mean by 'rule of man.' How is this type of rule qualitatively different from your conception of rule of law? Aren't laws created and interpreted by men and women in the countries you are talking about? (if not... as democracies aren't they supposed to be? Why or why not?) How does the 'rule of man' play out in the nations you see as antithetical to the so called 'anglosphere' in such a way as to make them wholly incompatible and necessarily opposed to your aligned groups and cultures?

[ft.niagara]

Agreed - and in line with this topic's theme we'd all agree that your "ou" spellings combined with a few turban-clad RCMPs pretty much sums up the strength of Canada's "identity"...

And your point is???

I think his point is "Canadian Identity" is contrived.

[ft.niagara]

This shows that you do not understand the Jewish people. We are a people who adhere strongly to the rule of law, not the rule of man. Thus, we tend to align with similar groups and cultures. Thus, the alignment with the Anglosphere.

This is interesting. If this post is supposed to say something essential about the Jewish people then you are right, I do not understand the Jewish people.

It seems you owe an explanation here, since you are drawing on an unexplained distinction in order to demarcate 'jewishness' and its link with what you call the anglosphere.

IOW what is the rule of law as you understand it? How do you support the claim that the jewish people, and by extension the anglosphere (or similar groups and cultures to use your words), strongly adhere to it? Additionally, you should explain what you mean by 'rule of man.' How is this type of rule qualitatively different from your conception of rule of law? Aren't laws created and interpreted by men and women in the countries you are talking about? (if not... as democracies aren't they supposed to be? Why or why not?) How does the 'rule of man' play out in the nations you see as antithetical to the so called 'anglosphere' in such a way as to make them wholly incompatible and necessarily opposed to your aligned groups and cultures?

Great Questions. In Other Words, one gets the notion that nobody knows what the other is talking about.

[gnam]

Agreed - and in line with this topic's theme we'd all agree that your "ou" spellings combined with a few turban-clad RCMPs pretty much sums up the strength of Canada's "identity"...

And your point is???

I think his point is "Canadian Identity" is contrived.

Wow, "contrived" ... you must be like one of those social-critic-mimestripetshirtwearing-poet-cool guys - form the soda parlour huh???

Sorry to come off like a jerk but that whole "... identity is so ~like~ contrived dude!" is so much hipster crap!!

the question is what do you mean when you say Canadian identity (including its weaknesses)

And what do ya mean when you say 'contrived' with respect to any 'new world' nation?? exactly?

[gnam]

This shows that you do not understand the Jewish people. We are a people who adhere strongly to the rule of law, not the rule of man. Thus, we tend to align with similar groups and cultures. Thus, the alignment with the Anglosphere.

This is interesting. If this post is supposed to say something essential about the Jewish people then you are right, I do not understand the Jewish people.

It seems you owe an explanation here, since you are drawing on an unexplained distinction in order to demarcate 'jewishness' and its link with what you call the anglosphere.

IOW what is the rule of law as you understand it? How do you support the claim that the jewish people, and by extension the anglosphere (or similar groups and cultures to use your words), strongly adhere to it? Additionally, you should explain what you mean by 'rule of man.' How is this type of rule qualitatively different from your conception of rule of law? Aren't laws created and interpreted by men and women in the countries you are talking about? (if not... as democracies aren't they supposed to be? Why or why not?) How does the 'rule of man' play out in the nations you see as antithetical to the so called 'anglosphere' in such a way as to make them wholly incompatible and necessarily opposed to your aligned groups and cultures?

Great Questions. In Other Words, one gets the notion that nobody knows what the other is talking about.

I dunno... the questions weren't meant to advertise any particular notions... since they were "questions" they were supposed to encourage notions to be put forth

[ft.niagara]

Agreed - and in line with this topic's theme we'd all agree that your "ou" spellings combined with a few turban-clad RCMPs pretty much sums up the strength of Canada's "identity"...

And your point is???

I think his point is "Canadian Identity" is contrived.

Wow, "contrived" ... you must be like one of those social-critic-mimestripetshirtwearing-poet-cool guys - form the soda parlour huh???

Sorry to come off like a jerk but that whole "... identity is so ~like~ contrived dude!" is so much hipster crap!!

the question is what do you mean when you say Canadian identity (including its weaknesses)

And what do ya mean when you say 'contrived' with respect to any 'new world' nation?? exactly?

I don't know what he means. Ask Jerry.

But, I think that Jerry simply meant that an English speaking country, next to another English speaking country ten times its size, is in search of an identity. That identity may in truth be superficial and superfulous to include everything from spelling, to measurement, to political position, to eh. The reference to strength of Canadian identity, and turban clad RCMP would be that Canada attempting to accomodate all, as exemplified by the Quebec "nation" accomodation, really has a weak, or at least changing identity. It is being shaped, rather than doing the shaping. Your reference to Canada as a 'new world' nation probably means you recognize this also. At least, I think Jerry may have meant something like that.