Canada - The "Nice" Enemy

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The point is that Canada must be principled in its approach. In Iraq, we as well as most of the rest of the world determined that Saddam was wrong to invade Kuwait. In the case of Bin, we were in favour of dealing with the Taliban in order to get him. That too was a mistake.

As a nation, we must seek to not merely take sides in global events but to apply our own principles to our own foreign policy.

[LesterDC]

Then it was also a mistake to join NATO...which brings responsibilities. Was it also a mistake for CF-18s to bomb Serbs ?.....Canada was never attacked. How about Haiti?

Maybe only the "fair weather" wars are popular.

Yep.. That's what they get for attacking the U.S.A., that's the whole point of NATO. If you don't want to get invaded, don't attack us

[ToadBrother]

The point is that Canada must be principled in its approach. In Iraq, we as well as most of the rest of the world determined that Saddam was wrong to invade Kuwait. In the case of Bin, we were in favour of dealing with the Taliban in order to get him. That too was a mistake.

As a nation, we must seek to not merely take sides in global events but to apply our own principles to our own foreign policy.

"Our" principles seem largely to be a concoction of a rather weak-kneed PM who had the benefit at the height of the Cold War of a very powerful ally on our southern flank who basically shielded us from any meaningful possibility of invasion.

There was a time when Canadians proudly marched off to fight for King and Country, laid their lives down in the thousands, and now a few hundred soldiers over the space of several years has a fair chunk of the country knocking at the knees.

These men are soldiers, and for once they're finally being given meaningful rules of engagement, as opposed to be ineffective targets. Quite frankly, I'd ban peacekeeping. If you want a goddamned army in a country, then get one, otherwise send a bunch of Mounties. Soldiers fight wars, they kill enemies, that's their job. Imagine what would have happened in the Balkans if the UN forces had been given the right to engage enemies, to use covert forces to knock out their mortar emplacements, to use large conventional forces to beat back the Serb armies, and bombing campaigns to wipe out their capacity to make war and commit genocide. Imagine the same in Rwanda.

Instead, we have a pathetic and cowardly government dismantling one of our best fighting units over some crap that happened in Somalia, a country that is now taken over from Afghanistan as an Islamist hang out, not to mention piracy. I think we should take the position "If you ask us to to put our soldiers somewhere, then they must have the right to proper military operations, otherwise, screw you."

[eyeball]

Eyeball - Ok, so if Indonesia, China, or the US start invading countries, and those countries ask for our help we should do nothing then ?

The business of inviting us to stage a invasion of liberation is a non-starter for me. It's just too easy these days to trot out a handful of inviters to legitimize invasions and military involvement and the other side of this coin is that doing so makes us a legitimate target for revenge and our subsequent invasion and round and round it goes. Where it stops nobody knows. I think the regions immediately around the countries being invaded have to start taking responsibility for the conflicts that occur around them. As it stands now most of these have been able to count on someone like Canada coming to the rescue.

Another thing to consider is that invading another country really is like inviting a cancer to inhabit your body. The sheer economic cost alone of invading someone these days should be enough to deter anyone from even contemplating it. This plus the cost of occupation and fighting the cancer of subsequent insurgencies and rebellions that follow make invasions even more stupid a prospect.

My ideas are largely shaped by my conclusion that the age of abundance is nearing its end and that our planet is in ecological peril. The analogy I use is that the ship is on fire and we need to prepare our lifeboat for our own survival and we can ill afford to take time out to settle the squabbles breaking out amongst people who should be doing the same. As for anyone who threatens to take our lifeboat away we should be ready to defend it, and I suggest we threaten to go nuclear to achieve this because its probably the cheapest option and the only one that seems to have deterred a conventional invasion.

Does this preclude the whole ship suddenly waking up and taking concerted peaceful action to put the fire out? No of course not. I just don't think its likely and I think its prudent we behave as if it wasn't.

What should we do in the case of your question? We should suspend all ecomonic trade with any country that invades another and any countries that don't follow our lead. This should be a strict policy and we should stick to it. It should be based on a conviction that military intervention in the affairs of others is ultimately self-defeating and self-destructive. Canadians are always reminded of how willing we've been to make sacrifices in the past. I fail to see why the economic sacrifice of the magnitude my policy would call for wouldn't be preferable to sacrificing actual human Canadian lives. Shouldn't Canadian flesh and blood trump our money?

The way forward is ahead of us, its not back in 1939.

[eyeball]

Some people forget that the issue precedes 9/11 by many years.

Do tell.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The business of inviting us to stage a invasion of liberation is a non-starter for me. It's just too easy these days to trot out a handful of inviters to legitimize invasions and military involvement and the other side of this coin is that doing so makes us a legitimate target for revenge and our subsequent invasion and round and round it goes. Where it stops nobody knows. I think the regions immediately around the countries being invaded have to start taking responsibility for the conflicts that occur around them. As it stands now most of these have been able to count on someone like Canada coming to the rescue.

Another thing to consider is that invading another country really is like inviting a cancer to inhabit your body. The sheer economic cost alone of invading someone these days should be enough to deter anyone from even contemplating it. This plus the cost of occupation and fighting the cancer of subsequent insurgencies and rebellions that follow make invasions even more stupid a prospect.

My ideas are largely shaped by my conclusion that the age of abundance is nearing its end and that our planet is in ecological peril. The analogy I use is that the ship is on fire and we need to prepare our lifeboat for our own survival and we can ill afford to take time out to settle the squabbles breaking out amongst people who should be doing the same. As for anyone who threatens to take our lifeboat away we should be ready to defend it, and I suggest we threaten to go nuclear to achieve this because its probably the cheapest option and the only one that seems to have deterred a conventional invasion.

Does this preclude the whole ship suddenly waking up and taking concerted peaceful action to put the fire out? No of course not. I just don't think its likely and I think its prudent we behave as if it wasn't.

What should we do in the case of your question? We should suspend all ecomonic trade with any country that invades another and any countries that don't follow our lead. This should be a strict policy and we should stick to it. It should be based on a conviction that military intervention in the affairs of others is ultimately self-defeating and self-destructive. Canadians are always reminded of how willing we've been to make sacrifices in the past. I fail to see why the economic sacrifice of the magnitude my policy would call for wouldn't be preferable to sacrificing actual human Canadian lives. Shouldn't Canadian flesh and blood trump our money?

The way forward is ahead of us, its not back in 1939.

Canadians soldiers should fight for our freedom, that is the long and the short of it. With all due respect, it is honourable to fight and die for another persons freedom as well. However I must agree that the correct path is economic sanctions first. When all else fails or the nation is under attack then and only then should we deploy our military assets to make war.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canadians soldiers should fight for our freedom, that is the long and the short of it. With all due respect, it is honourable to fight and die for another persons freedom as well. However I must agree that the correct path is economic sanctions first. When all else fails or the nation is under attack then and only then should we deploy our military assets to make war.

This not consistent with the stated policies of "Responsibility to Protect", human rights, and United Nations "peacekeeping" missions. Something is amiss....

[ToadBrother]

This not consistent with the stated policies of "Responsibility to Protect", human rights, and United Nations "peacekeeping" missions. Something is amiss....

Yes, UN Peacekeeping missions are a joke. Rwanda, Sri Lanka and the Balkans all come to mind as examples of just how meaningless peacekeeping is. Frankly, I'd make it against the law for any member of our military to even take part in such farces. If they don't have the power to march on belligerents and blow them away, then they shouldn't even be there. Let some do-gooders sit inside fortresses and watch the atrocities, and army should have the power to actually go in and start shooting villains. Just imagine if those Dutch peacekeepers had been able to call open air support to start blowing up the genocidal monsters before the Srebrenica massacre.

Peacekeeping is nothing more than a vapid notion that makes governments to cheap and too cowardly to take a stand feel really good about themselves.

[Michael Hardner]

My ideas are largely shaped by my conclusion that the age of abundance is nearing its end and that our planet is in ecological peril. The analogy I use is that the ship is on fire and we need to prepare our lifeboat for our own survival and we can ill afford to take time out to settle the squabbles breaking out amongst people who should be doing the same. As for anyone who threatens to take our lifeboat away we should be ready to defend it, and I suggest we threaten to go nuclear to achieve this because its probably the cheapest option and the only one that seems to have deterred a conventional invasion.

Eyeball,

Your ideas seem consistent, however the idea that we 'go nuclear' implies that we stick with the US as we don't have an independent nuclear program. This seems a little surprising to me, since you've never appeared to me to be a big defender of the US as our partner.

What you seem to be saying is that we need to align ourselves more closely with the US, both in defense and in natural resource use.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Eyeball,

Your ideas seem consistent, however the idea that we 'go nuclear' implies that we stick with the US as we don't have an independent nuclear program. This seems a little surprising to me, since you've never appeared to me to be a big defender of the US as our partner.

What you seem to be saying is that we need to align ourselves more closely with the US, both in defense and in natural resource use.

Enter the concept of "Fortress North America", unfortunately this is beginning to make more sense all the time.

[M.Dancer]

There is a difference when a country ASKED for Help but in Afg. is totally different. The US wanted the Taliban out and put there own guy in a leader. Afg. didn't asked for help, it was invaded for the same reason as Iraq...oil, and US military centre to rule the Middle-East.

Not quite. Afghanistan in 2001 was in the midst of a civil war. The winning side (Northern Alliance) asked for help...and they got it in spades.

...and there is no oil in Afghanistan.....and no Iraqi oil has been diverted from its traditional markets.

[madmax]

Not quite. Afghanistan in 2001 was in the midst of a civil war. The winning side (Northern Alliance) asked for help...and they got it in spades.

That is correct. The Northern Alliance, backed by Russia and some former USSR States, as well as Iran held up against the Taliban. The Northern Alliance was willing to accept the US pipeline whereas the Taliban choose a Brazillian company, IIRC, and all the US had to do was quickly swallow its pride, aid the Rebels they had been undermining when relying on Pakistan to deliver the goods. The Afghanistan has been in a Civil War since 1979, and civil conflict prior to that.

The US provided the hardware, and the NA quickly overran areas the US wanted protected, including Kabul. The US was successful in allowing the Pakistanis the ability to airlift out their supporters in one of those vietnam like visions we are so aware of.

...and there is no oil in Afghanistan.....and no Iraqi oil has been diverted from its traditional markets.

Just Oil Pipelines.

And no oil has been diverted from its traditional markets, that is foreign markets. The domestic market is another story.

[eyeball]

Eyeball,

Your ideas seem consistent, however the idea that we 'go nuclear' implies that we stick with the US as we don't have an independent nuclear program. This seems a little surprising to me, since you've never appeared to me to be a big defender of the US as our partner.

What you seem to be saying is that we need to align ourselves more closely with the US, both in defense and in natural resource use.

No I'm not a big defender of our military partnerships with the US. Like you said I'm being consistent. I'm all for aligning more closely with the US if they clean up their act and follow our lead.

What should we do in the case of your question? We should suspend all ecomonic trade with any country that invades another and any countries that don't follow our lead.

That includes the US. Why should they get a free pass? This means suspending trade with countries found to be supplying arms to invaders.

We have the technical expertise to build a small deterrent stockpile, but I'd simply start with threatening to go nuclear. Maybe build one or two and test them just to let everyone know we mean business.

[bush_cheney2004]

No I'm not a big defender of our military partnerships with the US. Like you said I'm being consistent. I'm all for aligning more closely with the US if they clean up their act and follow our lead.

Why would the US ever follow Canada's "lead"? The nations have different interests and capabilities. The US is busy playing superpower, while Canada worries about Spain stealing turbot fish stocks.

That includes the US. Why should they get a free pass? This means suspending trade with countries found to be supplying arms to invaders.

As another member once told me, Canada will never back up such talk with any kind of walk.

We have the technical expertise to build a small deterrent stockpile, but I'd simply start with threatening to go nuclear. Maybe build one or two and test them just to let everyone know we mean business.

Big deal....Pakistan is already way ahead of you and look what it has done for them. One or two? That's cute!

[Wilber]

We have the technical expertise to build a small deterrent stockpile, but I'd simply start with threatening to go nuclear. Maybe build one or two and test them just to let everyone know we mean business.

What business? Deterring who from what? Going nuclear at the expense of everything else gives you only one military option for all circumstances, using nuclear weapons. Not much of a strategy if you ask me.

[eyeball]

What business? Deterring who from what? Going nuclear at the expense of everything else gives you only one military option for all circumstances, using nuclear weapons.

That's a damn good question. Islamofacists, Russians and the Chinese or so I've been told.

Not much of a strategy if you ask me.

I guess I'll have to get up earlier if I ever expect to fool you. I was actually hoping that if we had a few nukes kicking around we could mollify the paranoiacs who have been screaming these are about to fall out of the sky at any minute.

[BigAl]

I don't think that it was apparent in 2001 that Pakistan would offer harbour to the Taliban to the extent that it has.

I also do not think the definition of success in Afghanistan need be annihilating the Taliban from the face of the earth. I believe that our objectives should be defined by the condition in which Afghanistan is in, not by whether the enemy has been annihilated.

-k

Annihilation is a strong word in any context. Surely we're beyond this at this point? I agree with kimmy -- the definition of success needs to be directly proportional to how well the citizens of Afghanistan are holding up.