Grantler

It wasn't an essay, just a rundown of Vietnam followed by how I think that it stands with regard to today's world.

Is this going to turn into a debate about Keynes' theory of economics vs. Hayek's cause that would be awesome!

I guess I will start this one off. One thing I have found with students is their ability to form opinions on scarce information. What I see is a fragment of the population that adopts ultra-liberal tendencies without first thinking of the results of such policy. I am a Liberal, in the big L sense of the term, but to start mixing in all sorts of small l liberal desires in a nation-state such as Canada becomes scary. We need more students in two sided discussion that have their eyes open by quality argument.

Well I guess that it will be a good election results to examine when the polls close next time around. We will see if what BC wants is a real centrist government or just a centrist party by name that makes them feel secure.

In reading all of these posts and thinking to myself the implications of religion in the constitution...when a more drastic separation of church and state occurred shouldn't the government have realized the errors of the writers and looked to amend that change. I mean, who knows what other kind of wording is in there that will be targetted next. Civil marriages, no, I still say get rid of the word marriage altogether. They can call themselves whatever they want to other people, married or whatever. We shouldn't have a government imposing that officially in anyway. It concerns me.

Well I have to admit that I love this forum. I am not sure how many students are here though and it is really strange but they are starting to form some pretty decent opinions. I have to admit that I will be posting on this site very regularly as I can already tell that thoughts expressed by members of this site are incredible. Both sides to issues are argued well and with justification. Anyway, as you can see in my signature a group of us students from the University of Western Ontario is trying to get politically minded people in order to guage political culture etc for Canadians. We have gathered a group of students and are looking to talk to adults and other politcally minded people over at the link in my signature. If anyone is supportive of getting students talking and discussing issues on a scale as great at this website it would be great. Maybe then it would be possible for this website to think about making a forum that allows students to come and talk with each other? Anyway, what are your thoughts on youth beliefs and issues? It would be nice to see what you think we think!!

Vietnam stands as the first modern day proxy war. It serves as a distinct example of the horrible nature of modern war where technology can slaughter hundreds of people in an instant and in the name of any cause. As Vietnam taught America, the full fledged proxy war was not the path to victory in the Cold War. Yet, the Soviet Union did not accept this fact and blundered into a conflict in Afghanistan. What was to follow can be termed nothing less than the communist’s own Vietnam type experience. Afghanistan was a country of 15 million people in 1978 when the left wing regime of Noor Taraki took power. This delighted the socialist Soviets on the northern border who still believed in the unyielding power of Leninist Russia. Taraki, backed by the Soviets, moved forward in spreading a socialist agenda throughout the Islamic nation. This took the shape of sweeping reforms. For example, women literacy was now encouraged and veils were no longer mandatory in public. As in Vietnam, the culture of a nation was being disturbed in a way not acceptable to a proud and historic people. Even though the changes may have been in accordance with human rights and modern times, Islamic opponents began to rise up to stop the reforms. Unfortunately, Soviet ideology pushed on and anti-imperialist sentiment grew to a point were it jumped borders into neighbouring Iran. The overthrow of the Iranian Shah in 1979 sparked the loss of America’s biggest supported in the Arab world. Alarms went off at the White House as fears began to arise that communists may next move into Iran. This was unacceptable to President Carter and in July 1979 American equipment was flowing into Afghanistan. Most of this equipment went to a group known as the Mujahideen or ‘Soldiers of God’. Events were to unfold rapidly in Afghanistan as Prime Minister Amin succumbed to a desire for power and killed not only thousands of his fellow people but also President Taraki as well. These actions turned the nation into a breeding ground of anti-communist Islamic fundamentalism and in December 1979 Russia was forced to commit troops. Amin was assassinated within hours. A proxy war had now begun with the Mujahideen combating a well armored Soviet war machine. This was indeed a Soviet Vietnam. As the first Soviet troops streamed into Afghanistan, the United States issued a press release stating that any communist movements into Iran or Pakistan would result in immediate reprisals. Carter did not rule out nuclear retaliation. The Cold War stalemate was over. As a result, American diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski became democracy’s lifeline to Afghanistan. It was his goal to supply the Mujahideen as necessary and he carried out this job with American, Chinese and even Soviet equipment. The war began to intensify in 1980. The Soviets had already funneled one hundred thousand troops into Afghanistan and America elected a new president by the name of Ronald Reagan. It was no secret that Reagan despised communism and was about to enlarge the American military industrial complex in hopes of driving the Soviets out of the Cold War. Afghanistan was his first objective. The Americans gave Brzezinski the green light to increase aid to the Mujahideen and he did. The resulting gorilla war was termed best by the CIA’s head of the Afghanistan Taskforce, Frank Anderson, who stated that America fought the war for America’s own goals with Afghan blood. As the war escalated the world took notice and the United Nations decided it was time to act. In 1982, the UN attempted to negotiate a deal to get the Soviets out. The Soviets decided to back out citing that the UN plan would tarnish the image of communism. But, in November of the same year, President Brezhnev died and his replacement, Yuri Andropov expressed interest in a deal. Unfortunately, this was the Cold War and hope in this was not something the Americans took to heart. They pressed Pakistan to continue their already strong support of Islamic fundamentalism against the Soviets. It was now obvious to the Soviets that they could never win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Just as was the case for Americans in Vietnam, the Soviets could trust no one. Unlike the Americans, this meant the eradication of thousands of innocent Afghans. As a result, the Mujahideen responded with atrocities of their own. The war was out of control by the end of 1982. When Mikhail Gorbechev ascended to power in 1985, the war was not winnable. He decided that the best course of action was to pull out at the soonest possible time available that would cater to the Soviet desire to save face in the matter. Reagan realized that the communists wanted a deal and refused to bargain. Instead, he sent more advanced technology, such as the surface to air stinger missile, to help battle Soviet air supremacy. This helped drive the war on for three more years. By 1988, the Soviets were tired. Drug addiction and depression had overrun the military. The Islamic fundamentalist enemy was undying in its goal to rid Afghanistan of socialism. Marxism was on its way out of the nation. The full cost of the war came to light as the Soviet troops began to pull out in 1988 after the Geneva Accord was signed. Since 1979, five million Afghan people were wounded or forced to leave and one million were dead. Soviet deaths totaled 15,000. Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story. The regime known as the Taliban rose to power after years of tribal fighting in Afghanistan. The Taliban instituted a system of governance that ignored basic human rights and promoted Islamic fundamentalism on a scale never seen before. One of the followers of this faith is Osama bin Laden. As was apparent after the horrifying attacks of September 11th, 2001, the world changed. Communism was replaced by a new threat to democratic nations. This new threat, terrorism, took roots in Afghanistan where training grounds of the terror organization known as Al Qaeda appeared. Ironically, Al Qaeda utilizes Soviet and American arms left behind from the Afghanistan proxy war. The Mujahideen no longer focuses their Islamic fundamentalist views in disgust towards socialism alone. In this age, their one time American allies are the new infidels. Afghanistan once again became a staging ground for a conflict that garnered international attention immediately following September 11th. In what is known as Operation Enduring Freedom, coalition nations led by the United States continue to help mold Afghanistan into a shining example of Islamic democracy. This current operation is doing what the Soviets would have liked to carry out. But, in my opinion, what is occurring in Afghanistan today is a just and righteous movement towards freedom for all people of the world. Socialism was not the answer then, and is not the answer now, for any human being. Neither is Islamic fundamentalism that, for example, preaches the subservience of women. However, the question may be asked as to why America and the United Nations have succeeded in Afghanistan. The answer lies in the proxy war. Operation Enduring Freedom is not a proxy war. It is instead the liberation of hope within a people that will be able to live democratically while nurturing their culture. The Soviet war in Afghanistan, and even American intervention in Vietnam, did not boast those traits. Ideology cannot be imposed on a foreign people. Nevertheless, freedom can indeed be provided by humanitarian military intervention and that is exactly what the current Operation Enduring Freedom is achieving.

The 1954 battle of Dien Bien Phu marked the end of French colonial ambition in Vietnam. The Vietnamese, led by future Nationalist and Communist regime head Ho Chi Minh and General Vo Nguyen Giap, systematically bled the French of all ability to defend their colonial outpost. On May 8, after nearly two months, the French succumbed. But more importantly, the incident at Dien Bien Phu demonstrated to the world that war would be everything but conventional in the jungles and river valleys of the Vietnamese homeland. The Vietnamese also illustrated that invaders would not be dealt with as is do done in the Western world as 70% of the French taken captive died in prisoner-of-war camps. This was an antecedent for any nation wishing to test the nationalist spirit of the Vietnamese people. Unfortunately, the United States, mired in its confidence of the ‘Domino Effect’, believed in their moral and technological superiority so much that they too would attempt a crusade into Vietnam. The domino effect took hold in 1962 a year after John F. Kennedy’s famous, “We shall pay any price”, speech. The situation between the two countries was becoming tense as the Soviet backed Communist regime of Ho Chi Minh was increasingly supporting the actions of the National Liberation Front, or Vietcong, against the South. The thought of Vietnam falling was spiteful to American leadership. It was vastly believed in the White House and Pentagon that the fall of South Vietnam, then led by intolerant President Diem, would mark the beginning of a transition that would see other Asian countries fall like dominoes to the forces of Communism. The events that followed were what the Americans including President Lyndon B. Johnson would call the defense of democracy and capitalism, also known as the “Great Society”. The method of defending this society would be the Vietnam War. As Commanding General William Westmoreland put it, there was no prior experience for what he had seen in Vietnam and what he did as a result was merely trial and error. From the second Gulf of Tonkin incident through the Rolling Thunder air campaign against the North, and on to the night time assaults against the Ho Chi Minh trail the Vietnamese were willing to die. The entire war was an exercise in taking and then retaking meaningless land. The Vietnamese were not in the war for the land, they fought for their heritage and their free will. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara knew it, Richard Nixon knew it, and most certainly Martin Luther King knew it. The Vietnamese did not want to be another city on the hill or part of Johnson’s “ Great Society.” And, even though the 1968 Tet Offensive was a massive North Vietnamese defeat it opened the eyes of the American GIs and public who realized that you could not distinguish between friend and foe and therefore winning the war was out of reach. This transition into Vietnam was not something that transpired overnight. Years of Cold War build up created the American incursion into Vietnam. Yet, the Cold War ceased in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union and so to with it went the proxy war. Why then is the current Operation Iraqi Freedom or as it is more commonly known, the War on Iraq, so similar in nature to the proxy war in Vietnam that occurred three decades before? By examining American policy and ideology it is possible to draw similar connections between the Vietnam and Iraq wars. As was discussed earlier, the Vietnam War pitted American Capitalism against Soviet Communism. The similarity to the War on Iraq lies in an understanding of American foreign policy or more distinctly economic imperialism. It was argued in the preamble to both wars that America desired to free a people from tyranny. In Vietnam it was Communism. In Iraq it is terrorism. The term has changed but the reasoning is still the same: America must defend its economic interests. I am not suggesting that America is wrong for becoming involved in either conflict. What I am presenting is the idea that the combination of American morality, technology, and capitalism is a dangerous combination. What can be created out of such an amalgamation is a military industrial complex that needs to be fed. In the case of Iraq you can also throw into the mix the need to secure oil for future generations of Americans – and Canadians and the British. The list can go on and on. The truth of the matter is that Iraq stood in the way of economic stability in the free world. Mix this together with the fact that Saddam Hussein was the most despotic and ruthless leader in the Middle East and a justifiable military action under the name of terrorism is not hard to gain support for in America. In Vietnam much of the same occurred. Asia was the door to American cheap labour. Multi-national corporations were drooling at the opportunity to export cheap jobs to Asia that could bring down prices across the board and increase profits for shareholders. The so called domino effect would close off this market and deliver it to Communism. Much worse, it would have been a Communist region defended by nuclear weapons. The similarities just begin here. Just as Westmoreland and Johnson found out before, General Tommy Franks and George W. Bush found out in Iraq that war is different when you are invading someone’s home. What we are seeing in Iraq is reminiscent of the suicide attackers in Vietnam who would gladly die to expel the United States whether the Americans are making their nation a healthier one by being there or not. Some people do not with to be part of the “Great Society”. It is my opinion that while American ‘imperialism’ may be brought about by a faulty ideology it is still a desirable ideology that people the world over could benefit from. Therefore, while the wars in Vietnam and Iraq were conducted wrong I find that the motivation behind each is acceptable in the greater scope of humanity’s evolution toward a single comprehensive ideology.

Governments the world over sent money to the tsunami victims. Then, in these same countries, organizations ask for individual donations. It may sound heartless, but I did not participate in those. The governments do not just magically come up with the millions they sent. It is taxpayers money so really, we all already participated in relief.

As for us giving up on our failing forces, no, I do not think that we should do it. The reasoning is not that we should pay the Americans to defend us, because really, they already do. Canada has some of the most elite forces in the world in my opinion. It has seemed that our small military has spawned a level of success in the fieild in recent years. As a friend of mine in the US Rangers told me, the JTF2 squad he saw in action was the best and most disciplined command of troops he has ever witnessed in action. We need to keep that availible to the world in order to maintain peace and stability in nations of need. The United States already defends us within the NATO agreement so our forces can be used elsewhere.

And this is all under a BC Liberal government? We have discussed in class that the BC government is more conservative than liberal in theory and this is a very distinct example of why that is believed. As for BC, has there not been a party that has tried to right this health care system? It seems to me that, even for prescription drugs, all provinces in Canada have an obligation to provide as close to universal health care as possible? What is the state of the provinces economy? Are these premiums necessary do you think?

The free market, in the sense of Friedmann and Hayek, is the best type of economy availible. Allow it to foster growth and it will take care of you. Try to control it or neglect it at your own demise. Ask the Soviet Union.

Is BC a province where a center leaning party can even stand a chance of winning or is this thread all about high hopes? Think about it, if BC woiuld elect a centrist party the Liberals would be sitting in the middle.

...maybe not dick waving...but sabre rattling might be a better term... Either way, yes, its a way of showing Martin how it now stands in government. To think that this will happen all the time is rediculous. Remember, every election puts the jobs of the members on the line...they do not want that. Would you want to risk being unemployed?

Canada needs to sit at the table and listen and quit letting international sentiment towards the "Evil Empire" cloud its judgements. Jack Layton recently spoke at my university and stressed that Canada should not take part in the BMD project. This included not sitting at the table with the United States. His reasoning was that the world community will change their view of Canada as what I think he considers a peace loving nation. BUT, by taking part in talks about BMD we will not receive a backlash internationally. We are a sovereign country that is in charge of its own territory. What we do to safeguard that has nothing to do with the international community. Whether we came up with this idea, or the Americans, it needs to be heard out.

From personal dealings with the Liberal Party I would not be surprised if Sorbarra is involved in this situation and will be questioned. Stepping aside is a big decision and at this time I say he does not do it. Ontario is a stable province. We can make it.

Wal-Mart outsources 80% of its business to China where it employs vast numbers of workers for small wages to produce cheap materials that flood the North American market. I do not see why they would close a store in Quebec considering the profit they are making. It makes you wonder what can actually be done in this country to protect our working people. It brings up the bigger question of is NAFTA really all it is craked up to be.

PR is not the answer in Canada. We are a nation that needs a national party. If there another country in the world that exhibits the samer regional characteristics as Canada? I think not. We are truly a federation and to keep a federation moving forward you need to be able to put in power a single entity that speaks for everyone. A PR system would promote the creation of fringe parties in every region of the nation. Obviously the answer to this by supporters is a minimum percentage cut-off for seats. But then, you have all of the regional fringe parties not being represented and all of those votes are wasted just like in the current system. Then, you have to look at the party list that would obviously be the way of obtaining members. How is this list going to be more representative? No longer will you have a Member of Parliament in your riding to represent you directly. The members will be more preoccupied with power and maintaining their place on the list for the next election. The problems with PR in a country like Canada can go on and on. I say if it isn't broke, don't fix it. Canada is the greatest nation in the world as far as I am concerned and if you disagree, maybe it is you that should leave this awful land. That is your choice.

I was just wondering whether people forgive Dalton for boosting health care premiums on certain practices such as chiropractic care. He was left with a miserable mess after the Prgressive Conservatives left power (and lied about the state of the Ontario books). How far can a Premier and governing party change from their election platform and still hope for decent support at the polls? I know as many as five years occur in between elections but some Ontarians were mighty pissed at this instance.

Who says marriage is a right at all? The founding fathers if Canada obviously used to term marriage in the Constitution due to their reality. They were living in a time when Canada was almost completely Christian (less the native population) and did not forsee this type of societal change. In my opinion the term was included as such because of the ideal that Canada would always remain dominated by Christian values. So then, with regards to modern times, is it really necessary to skew the intent of including the word marriage in the Constitution? Would it not be more just to change the entire term used by government to a non-religious term such as union considering the separtion of church and state? It is obvious the founding fathers made an error by choosing to include the term marriage. We not only have the right to offer the same benefits to same sex couples but we have the ability to now amend errors on the part of the founding fathers. Allow churches to bless marriage and government to recognize unions for their own benefit.