How Canadians view our military

[xul]

Now we see the true national character of some of those 'partners'. They are cheap moochers, nothing more!

Sometimes I feel it's a human defect.

Didn't America do the same thing to British during the World War II? Yes, they did. When British was desperately fighting Nazi, American didn't come to stand with them at the first time. They just sold weapons and ammunition to British and watched----If the history book I leant in middle school wasn't wrong, British even had to sell some of its oversea assets to America to pay for the bills of the ammunitions. This is why British fell and America raised after WW2.

When French was desperately fighting North Vietnamese communist rebels, American also didn't come to help---they just watched French falling, and gambled the chance they could take over when French left.

[Topaz]

IF any of you have some time to read than this website has the true facts about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and what went on to lead to war. It has official documents and news reports. http://www.historycommons.org/timelines.jsp

[bush_cheney2004]

IF any of you have some time to read than this website has the true facts about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and what went on to lead to war. It has official documents and news reports. http://www.historycommons.org/timelines.jsp

No...this web site is just the derek and Blackmax show.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The US did what it did for their own reasons. The point is that America makes its own rules, and they do live with the consequences.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US did what it did for their own reasons. The point is that America makes its own rules, and they do live with the consequences.

Right....that's how the USA got started. Worked out OK.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Right....that's how the USA got started. Worked out OK.

As in so far so good.........

[Wild Bill]

Sometimes I feel it's a human defect.

Didn't America do the same thing to British during the World War II? Yes, they did. When British was desperately fighting Nazi, American didn't come to stand with them at the first time. They just sold weapons and ammunition to British and watched----If the history book I leant in middle school wasn't wrong, British even had to sell some of its oversea assets to America to pay for the bills of the ammunitions. This is why British fell and America raised after WW2.

When French was desperately fighting North Vietnamese communist rebels, American also didn't come to help---they just watched French falling, and gambled the chance they could take over when French left.

Your history book must have been a bit of a thin one. First off, NATO is an organization of countries sharing a mutual defense treaty. Before WWII America had no such treaty with Britain. So unlike NATO, America had no obligation to help Britain.

In fact, the very idea of such an organization hadn't been invented yet! It took that war to show the need.

America DID implement a "lend-lease Act" where they essentially supplied Britain with immense amounts of supplies and materiel "on credit"! The credit terms were exceedingly generous, amounting to a "pay us back when you can" policy. America understood all along that if Britain fell the debt would of course never be repaid.

Perhaps the greatest difference from your premise is that before WWII America did not have reason to believe that aiding Britain or even getting involved in what was at that time a European war was in its own national interest. NATO is a formal agreement that legally binds a group of countries into obligations for their common interest.

It's just that much of Europe cheaped out on paying their club dues. Canada as well, I guess.

As for Britain falling and America raising after WWII, with Britain selling off some assets, your history book seems to have omitted the fact that after the war most nations had a war debt. That debt was to the Americans because America was the major manufacturing company, in effect the largest and most available supplier.

Few of these countries ever paid their debt! Britain impoverished itself as a point of honour, repaying its debt to America by the mid 50's. De Gaulle of France paid NOTHING! He just gave a gallic shrug and walked back to his home, the one that had been liberated by America, Britain and the Allies.

America did not rise from war profits, as you imply. By the end of the war it had become the biggest industrialized country on the planet. It's power and fortunes rose because more than any other competitor it had the infrastructure and ability to do so!

Ironically, some of the vanquished countries eventually became America's strongest competitors. Japan and Germany had had most of its manufacturing infrastructure destroyed. It took a decade or two but with hard work they rebuilt with the advantage of that infrastructure being new and modern, more so in most cases than that of America. Blaupunkt stereos and Japanese electronics and later cars seriously challenged America's economic power.

As for France and Viet Nam, that was a whole other mess but it was obvious that America did not get into it "to take over". Take over what? A primitive country? There would have been far more easier targets. No, they got involved in Viet Nam because they felt that it was in their own interests to stop the spread of communism. They didn't care if Viet Nam ever made them money. When you go to war you expect to SPEND money!

It sounds to me like your history book was so busy trying to make America look bad that it took the easy way, where it just omitted any and all facts that might have contradicted its assumed premise.

[waldo]

I can understand why you personally would revel in uncertainty and ambiguity to cloud your agenda; however, diplomacy deals in absolutes and the preciseness of words. Resolution 1441 didn't provide that absolute, precise wording to authorize force... as much as you want to trivialize the subsequent draft resolution seeking force authorization (calling it "political expediency"), there is also an absolute preciseness to the particulars behind that draft resolution scenario. I've asked you once previously if you'd like to take that dance, Dancer? So, again... would you like to head down the absolute and precisely documented and narrated particulars behind the inner workings of the U.S./UK attempting to gain sufficient votes for that draft resolution - the draft resolution seeking the force authorization that doesn't exist within 1441. Would you like to dance there, Dancer?

Is there any reason for you to flog the dead horse. I have already shown that you are pointless.

If you want a do over, show in....absolutes and precisness of words...where a further resolution was needed.

Speaking of preciseness...

face serious consequences

That's diplomatic language. It means serious consequences. Like ...umm....the use of force....the same way the UN authorized use of force to police the no fly zones. How that use of force is applied is up to those applying.

Dancer, you need to know when to fold em… why continue your futility – the U.S. took their own neo-con inspired pre-emptive lead regardless… why do you continue to beat your (horse) meat?

Bingo… Dancer takes the bait! Your diplomatic language knowledge needs remedial action… most assuredly, most emphatically, “face serious consequences” is not the UN diplomatic language used to mean “force authorization”. The UN diplomatic language used to mean “force authorization” is the phrase “all necessary means”. My gawd man… if you’re going to base your entire blundering, blustering fabrication on those 3 words, “face serious consequences”… you really – really – should do your homework!

Dancer, as you’ve now (finally) taken the bait… lets continue… I’m sure you’ll like it! I’ve already detailed particulars surrounding the UNSC meetings concerning Resolution 1441, explaining the raised concerns registered by UNSC members that 1441 must not include authorization for force… I’ve also provided quotes from the co-sponsors of the resolution, U.S./UK Ambassadors Negroponte and Greenstock, intended to reinforce that authorization for force does not exist within 1441. But best of all Dancer, the sweet-spot for you, is the fact that the draft 1441 Resolution included the phrasing that reinforces your absolute pathetic dance… the draft 1441 Resolution contained the very phrasing I’ve just educated you on… the draft 1441 Resolution contained the phrasing ‘all necessary means”. Upon the raised concerns from UNSC members, that phrase was removed from the draft and replaced in the final version with the phrase, “face serious consequences”… which by UN speak does not mean enforcement action.

The members that voted on Resolution 1441 were very clear/precise in their explanations of their votes adopting Resolution 1441, careful to state that the resolution did not provide an authorization for force. Let’s see those 1441 meeting quotes once again… the co-sponsor quotes that reinforce no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force:

In the meeting to vote on the draft U.S./UK resolution, both U.S. and UK Ambassadors to the UN formalized the raised UNSC member concerns to the use of force and both Ambassadors acted to negate said concerns by reinforcing that the Resolution 1441 did NOT provide the language to authorize force against Iraq; specifically:

As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have just adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

You’re embarrassing yourself Dancer – c’mon… know when to fold em!

So, again... your assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

Speaking of your further embarrassment… since you bring up the no-fly zones… care to indicate exactly where the UN authorized the establishment of the no-fly zones? Please say Resolution 688

[waldo]

1441 was a cookie cutter for future use. It COULD be used to create a standing army.

aside from your suggestion being incorrect (by the language of 1441), there is absolute specificity throughout it... including the specificity of ambiguity surrounding the 3 words that Dancer wants to hang his hat around... that Dancer wants to use to substantiate the hundreds of thousands killed by the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq... that Dancer wants to attribute to the further destabilizing of the Middle East... that........

Do you really think for a mere second that these resolutions are not hand crafted to have use sometime in the future, in another situation? Get a grip, this is international politics, not backwater municipal posturing. This a the biggest ballgame on the planet!

The UN is stuffed with appointed representatives to act according to the whims of the governments of the day. They are political operatives cognizant of not mere diplomatic tactics, but instead skilled professionals who can sweet talk a gang banger out of their own knife. The UN is a big boys game of the highest order. You are delusional to think otherwise.

Considering your over-the-top language/references, all I said was your suggestion was incorrect... and you ask me to get a grip and suggest delusion - interesting.

Relatively speaking, it's not a lengthy resolution - given your expressed certainty it shouldn't be difficult for you to explain how that resolution 1441 could be, as you state, used to, "create a standing army". This was where my emphasis lied...

In any case, the "cookie cutter" analogy, to me, doesn't fit as it implies an absolute sameness - resolution to resolution. As soon as you depart from that sameness, it's no longer "cookie cutter". Any resolutions I've read are precise to the details of the matter at hand - very particular and very specific. Resolutions can and do offer recall associations to previous resolutions, suggesting relation and timeline reference... they can and do offer recognition to the findings of previous resolutions, etc. To me - hardly "cookie cutter". Perhaps you're implying some degree of precedence, one resolution to another; i.e. building from... but, again, I doubt many would consider case law precedence a form of "cookie cutter" case building - whatever!

[M.Dancer]

yadda yadda yadda

So sad , too bad...can't answer the questions...

How does being pantsed feel?

[waldo]

How does being pantsed feel?

Feel? If it's anything like "facing serious consequences"... it's a walk in the park... it's a nothingness akin to your argument base. All your questions have been rigorously answered - all your assertions have been soundly trashed... and in the face of irrefutable fact/detail you continue your charade... your dance.

Dancer, "just say no" to your continued embarrassment... you should know when to fold em', Dancer... know when to fold em'

So, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

(by the way... how are you progressing on your no-fly zone research? Please come back with UN Resolution 688... it's a winner, for ya!

[bush_cheney2004]

....So, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

Yet the invasion was "substantiated", with a firm foundation and affirmation in subsequent UN resolutions for occupying forces.

...that's what being "pantsed" feels like.

[M.Dancer]

- there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq...

That's not what 1441 says. How can something be illegal when it has UNSC carte blanche?

You know, you screw with the UNSC, you will face serious consequences.

...now if you can show via another resolution that this ios incorrect, please do, but please shelve the pointless sniveling....

[xul]

Your history book must have been a bit of a thin one. First off, NATO is an organization of countries sharing a mutual defense treaty. Before WWII America had no such treaty with Britain. So unlike NATO, America had no obligation to help Britain.

In fact, the very idea of such an organization hadn't been invented yet! It took that war to show the need.

I have known NATO was set up after WW2 for over 30 years and I knew the different between the ww2 and the war in Afghanistan.

I also known the obligation of its members was described as "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."

But can the september 11 terrorist attacts be considered "an armed attack against America"? Nevertheless, all NATO members finally agreed American that it was because they agreed to sent their troops there, so they legally fulfilled their obligation.

But I guess there were no documents making certain that how many troops of each member had to plunge into such kind of war before the September 11 attacks, so there was a big loophole for anyone who didn't want to bear the heavy burden. And even to those who have sent troops in Afghanistan, they also have two option: 1)take initiative in fight or 2) stay inside their military fort to watch others fighting.

So morally there is no difference between what America did in ww2 and its allies have been doing in the war of Afghanistan. In both two cases, every one has two choise: 1)help allies in earnest or 2) do the best to serve itself interests well.

And in both two wars, everyone chose option 2.

America DID implement a "lend-lease Act" where they essentially supplied Britain with immense amounts of supplies and materiel "on credit"! The credit terms were exceedingly generous, amounting to a "pay us back when you can" policy. America understood all along that if Britain fell the debt would of course never be repaid.

America was aware all along that if Britain fell or was forced to negotiate truce with Germany Hitler would win and America would fall, and it was also aware if it involved into the war too early if would be helpful to defeat Hitler and millions lives would be saved, but just not helpful to weaken British enough to give America a chance to replace it. What it did was the best way to serve its own interests.

America also extended the lend-lease Act to Soviet after it involved into war, It obviously was not for the purpose of propping Statlin. All America did in and after ww2 was for itself interests, just as all its allies have been doing in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Exactly, in history a coalition usually formed on common interests of its members, and broke after the common interests no longer existed, just as the coalition of the CPCanada's Boss's opposite politicians's formed earlier this year----it formed due to the common interests and broke for lacking common interests.

Perhaps the greatest difference from your premise is that before WWII America did not have reason to believe that aiding Britain or even getting involved in what was at that time a European war was in its own national interest.

That's not exactly what I wanted to say---American political leaders knew all the time that at some point involving into the war was their biggest national interest. America did not come to help British because it awared that British would keep fighting whether American would come or not at the time, just as all American NATO allies are fully aware American will have to fight terrorism even if they withdraw their troops, so there are not any risks being a spectator. Using some Chinese byword, when the roof falls, the tallest guy will bear it.

NATO is a formal agreement that legally binds a group of countries into obligations for their common interest.

It's just that much of Europe cheaped out on paying their club dues. Canada as well, I guess.

So all NATO members include Canada have legally fulfilled their obligations, I'm sure of that. Americans can not complain them legally, but they can complain them morally--after making sure themselves taking the moral highground.

As for Britain falling and America raising after WWII, with Britain selling off some assets, your history book seems to have omitted the fact that after the war most nations had a war debt. That debt was to the Americans because America was the major manufacturing company, in effect the largest and most available supplier.

Few of these countries ever paid their debt! Britain impoverished itself as a point of honour, repaying its debt to America by the mid 50's. De Gaulle of France paid NOTHING! He just gave a gallic shrug and walked back to his home, the one that had been liberated by America, Britain and the Allies.

I have to agree, compared to Soviet, America were more generous. China had to pay all its ammunition debt of the Korean War during 1960-1962, when Mao refused Soviet to build some military base in China, this is why there was a famine in the three years, it was not all due to the failure of Mao's communism phantasy the Great Leap.

Nevertheless, if British did not fall into the war, there would be no war debt to pay, there will be no falling. Of course, I know it was not British fault.

America did not rise from war profits, as you imply.

atom-bomb, rocket, radar, jet-engine, guided missile....all of these components of being a superpower were due to American scientis's genius.

By the end of the war it had become the biggest industrialized country on the planet. It's power and fortunes rose because more than any other competitor it had the infrastructure and ability to do so!

Yes, by the end of the war....not at the start of the war.... why?

And at the start of the war, there were not as many infrastructure as it is after the war. Young army officer Dwight D. Eisenhower bumped six-two days to make a trip from American east coast to west coast in 1919.

Transcontinental Motor Convoy

and the idea of interstate highway is due to his experience in Europe.

Interstate Highway System

Ironically, some of the vanquished countries eventually became America's strongest competitors. Japan and Germany had had most of its manufacturing infrastructure destroyed. It took a decade or two but with hard work they rebuilt with the advantage of that infrastructure being new and modern, more so in most cases than that of America. Blaupunkt stereos and Japanese electronics and later cars seriously challenged America's economic power.

It happened mainly because all these countries are legally forbidden to make war to other countries.

As for France and Viet Nam, that was a whole other mess but it was obvious that America did not get into it "to take over". Take over what? A primitive country? There would have been far more easier targets. No, they got involved in Viet Nam because they felt that it was in their own interests to stop the spread of communism. They didn't care if Viet Nam ever made them money. When you go to war you expect to SPEND money!

It was their own interests to stop the spread of communism....of course, the biggest communist country then was Soviet, the another superpower and their competitor. Russian has given up communism for over 20 years, America are still trying to deploy its military forces to enclosure its border.

Vietnam was and is not a primitive country. Like China it has a lot of skilled but low-payed workers fitting to be the cheap labour force of Walmart Vietnamese factories to produce cheap goods propping the prosperity of America, and it also has some harbour fitting to be navy bases for American Navy to intercept Soviet navy sailing down Indian Ocean.

If French stayed there, French would take the bonus of the supposed victory of the war made by a coalition.

[waldo]

So, again... your assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

Yet the invasion was "substantiated", with a firm foundation and affirmation in subsequent UN resolutions for occupying forces.

"substantiated" by who?

I'm struggling with your Americanese...

(1) are you stating subsequent UN resolutions - subsequent to the (illegal) invasion, substantiated the invasion? If so, which resolutions?

or

(2) are you stating the subsequent (illegal) invasion was substantiated by preceding UN resolutions? If so, which resolutions?

or ?

[bush_cheney2004]

"substantiated" by who?

I'm struggling with your Americanese...

Of course you are struggling...in the face of reality. Your UNSC resolution gymastics are moot, as the invasion of Iraq is quite complete and "substantiated" by even more of the resolutions that you seemingly cherish so much.

Try to keep up....the world has moved on to occupation and Iraqi elections. Ding dong...Saddam is dead.

[waldo]

So, again... your assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

That's not what 1441 says. How can something be illegal when it has UNSC carte blanche?

You know, you screw with the UNSC, you will face serious consequences.

exactly - most certainly, 1441 does not say that force is authorized against Iraq... again, “all necessary means” versus “face serious consequences”.

the illegality is blatantly obvious - per UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan:

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal.

Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.

you need to know when to fold em', Dancer

[waldo]

Of course you are struggling...in the face of reality. Your UNSC resolution gymastics are moot, as the invasion of Iraq is quite complete and "substantiated" by even more of the resolutions that you seemingly cherish so much.

Try to keep up....the world has moved on to occupation and Iraqi elections. Ding dong...Saddam is dead.

struggling with your convoluted Americanese language... name those substantiated resolutions.

as for your moving on suggestion - I would expect nothing else given the ever evolving and expanding Bush revisionism at work... history will judge and there is a legacy to build, after all.

besides, you were late to the dance... it was Dancer's assertion by the way, although I am a most willing dance partner.

[bush_cheney2004]

struggling with your convoluted Americanese language... name those substantiated resolutions.

Why? In the end, they are as meaningless as the resolution you as wanting. Unlike you, the UN has accepted the obvious all along, from pre-invasion through current security arrangements for the removal of occupying forces.

as for your moving on suggestion - I would expect nothing else given the ever evolving and expanding Bush revisionism at work... history will judge and there is a legacy to build, after all.

As relevant as judging the legality of landing men on the Moon.

besides, you were late to the dance... it was Dancer's assertion by the way, although I am a most willing dance partner.

I'm not interested in your mating choices, but I am interested in playing UNSC resolution rope-a-dope while executing US foreign policy however the hell we please to do it. Don't like that? Come and arrest the US, UK, and AUS government.

Even Saddam laughed at assertions of "illegal" as he sacked Kuwait.

[waldo]

...but I am interested in playing UNSC resolution rope-a-dope while executing US foreign policy however the hell we please to do it. Don't like that? Come and arrest the US, UK, and AUS government.

"however the hell you please to do it"... says it all.

your countries past disdain for the UN isn't exactly "world news", mate. Seeing Obama at the UN this past week, actually chairing a UNSC meeting... a first ever... my gawd, perhaps America has finally recognized it needs to work within the community of nations... rather than against it.

[bush_cheney2004]

"however the hell you please to do it"... says it all.

No kidding ? You one sharp cookie!

your countries past disdain for the UN isn't exactly "world news", mate. Seeing Obama at the UN this past week, actually chairing a UNSC meeting... a first ever... my gawd, perhaps America has finally recognized it needs to work within the community of nations... rather than against it.

Nope....just more Rope-A-Dope. The UN needs the USA far more. Just ask General Dallaire.

[wyly]

atom-bomb, rocket, radar, jet-engine, guided missile....all of these components of being a superpower were due to American scientis's genius.

atom bomb was possible because of Einstien(austrian)E=mc2, Leó Szilárd(hungarian)chain reaction, and the Germans first split the atom in 1938...rocket, ancient chinese invention, Werner von Braun(German) leader responsible for modern rocketry, V-2 to the Saturn V-..radar many people but Robert Watson-Watt (Britian)made workable system first...jet engine, Frank Whittle (Britian)...guided missle, Henschel(germany)

american's arent stupid but crediting them for every advance in science is silly, most scientific advances are built on the accumulated knowledge of many people from many countries...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No kidding ? You one sharp cookie!

Nope....just more Rope-A-Dope. The UN needs the USA far more. Just ask General Dallaire.

Hey BC that isn't a real good example. Romeo beg for help from US forces in country only to have them hook an haul, turn tail and run. Thanks Bill Clinton and the mighty USA for allow the massacre that followed.

[Guest TrueMetis]

America was aware all along that if Britain fell or was forced to negotiate truce with Germany Hitler would win and America would fall, and it was also aware if it involved into the war too early if would be helpful to defeat Hitler and millions lives would be saved, but just not helpful to weaken British enough to give America a chance to replace it. What it did was the best way to serve its own interests.

How exactly? Hitler didn't have enough ships to invade North America and Japan would be lucky if it managed to hold all of the Pacific. Even if Hitler managed to take all of Europe there would be multiple resistance movements that would have to be dealt with before he even had a chance to think about invading North America.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey BC that isn't a real good example. Romeo beg for help from US forces in country only to have them hook an haul, turn tail and run. Thanks Bill Clinton and the mighty USA for allow the massacre that followed.

But not Canada, which couldn't even find 50 measley APCs or the means to airlift them there even it had them. Nope, just blame the Americans for turning him dowm....but hell....you have free health care !

No wonder Dallaire drank himself to sleep.....