Elections Canada's uneven playing field

[blueblood]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If you and the right don't understand that, it's all the more reason to keep you whackjobs from government.

And if you and the left can't understand that burying your head in the sand while evil people do evil things is wrong, it's all the more reason to keep you whackjobs from government.

[wyly]

The Aspers have been dedicated Liberals for decades. Even a simpleton should be able to check that out if he can find a monkey to type on that keyboard thing and a fourth grader to read the words to him.

As the 2006 federal election approached, David Asper dispelled any doubt that might have remained about his political leanings. At a campaign rally, he joined Harper onstage to endorse his candidacy. The open declaration of personal support for a politician was something new for media owners in Canada. "You have to wonder about the wisdom of Mr. Asper's endorsement of Mr. Harper," noted Christopher Dornan, director of Carleton University's journalism school. "Not from Mr. Asper's point of view, but from Mr. Harper's. Why invite accusations of having the press in your pocket?"

you best buy a monkey and ask a forth grader to help you out...

[Michael Hardner]

And if you and the left can't understand that burying your head in the sand while evil people do evil things is wrong, it's all the more reason to keep you whackjobs from government.

The right doesn't charge itself with flying around the world saying lives any more than the left does.

[wyly]

And if you and the left can't understand that burying your head in the sand while evil people do evil things is wrong, it's all the more reason to keep you whackjobs from government.

all the victims of terrorism are a tiny fraction of how many innocent people american foreign policy has killed, we're comparing thousands to millions here...

[bush_cheney2004]

....we're comparing thousands to millions here...

...but we never compare to Canadian "foreign policy"....LOL!

Edited February 8, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

Would you call someone who blows up a passenger train a freedom fighter? What about buses and subways in rush hour?....flying packed passenger planes into office towers filled wiyth workers?

The inability to distinguish between genuine freedom fighter and terrorists is one the liberal west's biggest failures.

This is an extremely tricky area. Take the French Resistance. They, and their Allied backers, certainly accepted a certain amount of collateral damage as a necessary risk. As I recall, there were some debates, at least with the Brits, as to whether it was, in the long term, a good idea to back certain Resistance operations. Ultimately, it was deemed that Vichy France was illegitimate, and Occupied France was, well, occupied by a foreign power.

The question is older than that. During the Napoleonic occupation of Spain, the first modern freedom fighters were born; the original guerrilla soldiers. While they're targets were usually French troops, Spanish collaborators and doubtless the odd civilian were taken out by the resistance to the French occupation. British backing during the Peninsular War may have set a rather undesirable precedent.

Edited February 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

all the victims of terrorism are a tiny fraction of how many innocent people american foreign policy has killed, we're comparing thousands to millions here...

Yes, of course. American foreign policy happened in this big vacuum.

Tell me, where do you think all the AK-47s floating around Africa, Asia and Latin America came from?

[nicky10013]

Would you call someone who blows up a passenger train a freedom fighter? What about buses and subways in rush hour?....flying packed passenger planes into office towers filled wiyth workers?

The inability to distinguish between genuine freedom fighter and terrorists is one the liberal west's biggest failures.

This post illustrates my point entirely. I don't believe that they're freedom fighters. Furthermore, what you or I think about them doesn't matter either. What matters is what the people in the region think. Whether we like it or not, these people have grievances real and imagined. Dropping bombs on them just adds to that list. Do I want the west and myself to be safer? Absolutely, however, we have to stop acting emotionally. We've been at war in the middle east for 9 years and nothing has changed. If anythign the world is more dangerous.

[nicky10013]

And if you and the left can't understand that burying your head in the sand while evil people do evil things is wrong, it's all the more reason to keep you whackjobs from government.

As I said, with all the bombs we've dropped and the bullets we've shot, the problem is nothing if not worse. Not physically going to war isn't the same as burying your head in the sand. The more we understand the area we're in, the better we can do. Furthermore, politics can't and shouldn't be reduced to a duality. As I mentioned above, it's not what we believe, it's what they believe. No matter how evil we think they are, they're not going to change their ways because we preach. Frankly, they change as they get richer and that's the bottom line.

In the end, terrorism is a reactionary response to development. Considering we're living in a global world the consequences have to be global. What happens during terrorist attacks is awful, but it's nothing compared to the growing pains the west went through. Genocide, wars, world wars. We can sit here from our perch and mock them for being evil. However, looking back at the course we traced to get where we are, the west can be definitevely viewed as worse. Who are we to call them evil? The best we can do is to further continue to help their development while beefing up security to ensure that these type of activities are kept to a minimum. That isn`t putting anyone`s head in the sand, it recognizes that the problem is political and economic, not military.

It's a solution that certainly addresses the complexity of the situation. As I'm sure we're all aware, global political crises can't be reduced to "good and evil."

[blueblood]

As I said, with all the bombs we've dropped and the bullets we've shot, the problem is nothing if not worse. Not physically going to war isn't the same as burying your head in the sand. The more we understand the area we're in, the better we can do. Furthermore, politics can't and shouldn't be reduced to a duality. As I mentioned above, it's not what we believe, it's what they believe. No matter how evil we think they are, they're not going to change their ways because we preach. Frankly, they change as they get richer and that's the bottom line.

Germany and Japan smartened up because they got their clocks cleaned. Russia smartened up because the US bankrupted it. Their beliefs didn't mean diddly squat when they pissed off the US/UK. The same will happen to the terrorists, they just haven't gotten their clocks cleaned thoroughly enough yet.

In the end, terrorism is a reactionary response to development. Considering we're living in a global world the consequences have to be global. What happens during terrorist attacks is awful, but it's nothing compared to the growing pains the west went through. Genocide, wars, world wars. We can sit here from our perch and mock them for being evil. However, looking back at the course we traced to get where we are, the west can be definitevely viewed as worse. Who are we to call them evil? The best we can do is to further continue to help their development while beefing up security to ensure that these type of activities are kept to a minimum. That isn`t putting anyone`s head in the sand, it recognizes that the problem is political and economic, not military.

The Middle East during the early Middle Ages was the most advanced, peaceful, civilization going. The west was trying to catch up to them. For some reason, they regressed into a gong show. For the amount of money they have, their living conditions are atrocious, and their rights structure compared to ours is pathetic. There is absolutely no excuse for that. So yes, we can call them evil. The west was smart enough to advance, they weren't. Economic development is all fine and dandy, but their needs to be this thing called security for it to take place, security comes from the military.

It's a solution that certainly addresses the complexity of the situation. As I'm sure we're all aware, global political crises can't be reduced to "good and evil."

Flying planes into buildings, blowing up civilians, oppressing women, and ruling by fear sounds pretty evil to me.

[nicky10013]

Germany and Japan smartened up because they got their clocks cleaned. Russia smartened up because the US bankrupted it. Their beliefs didn't mean diddly squat when they pissed off the US/UK. The same will happen to the terrorists, they just haven't gotten their clocks cleaned thoroughly enough yet.

We can't clean their clocks because they don't have clocks; they aren't nation states with something to lose. They're not an army with tanks, artillery pieces or infantry. It's a group of guys who are pissed off that their society is changing, and changing from their viewpoint externally. "Cleaning their clocks" not only reinforces their worldview, but drives other more moderate people further towards radicalization. The fact that we're thinking about this in almost 19th century terms really shows the depth of the problem society faces. Basing strategic goals on previous tactical manoevers has happened in every war. Not learning from the Civil War caused the British Empire to win a pyrhic victory in South Africa. Failure to learn from South Africa caused the trenches of WW1. The trenches of WW1 and the lack of preparedness for mobility essentially is what allowed the Nazis to conquer Europe to begin with. The last time major forces fought each other in a major tank battle was in the 70s between Israel and Egypt. Conflict has moved to something entirely different and the faster we recognize that blowing people up and building battle tanks is a thing of the past, the better off we'll be. I recommend reading The Utility of Force by General Rupert Smith.

The Middle East during the early Middle Ages was the most advanced, peaceful, civilization going. The west was trying to catch up to them. For some reason, they regressed into a gong show. For the amount of money they have, their living conditions are atrocious, and their rights structure compared to ours is pathetic. There is absolutely no excuse for that. So yes, we can call them evil. The west was smart enough to advance, they weren't. Economic development is all fine and dandy, but their needs to be this thing called security for it to take place, security comes from the military.

There's an obscene amount of money but almost no one has access to it. A strong middle class changes everything. If that money starts trickling down things change. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Flying planes into buildings, blowing up civilians, oppressing women, and ruling by fear sounds pretty evil to me.

To you and me, but clearly, those people don't think like we do. So should our strategy be what sounds best to us? I don't think so.

[M.Dancer]

This is an extremely tricky area. Take the French Resistance. They, and their Allied backers, certainly accepted a certain amount of collateral damage as a necessary risk.

Agreed but collateral damage is very different from directly targeting civilians

As I recall, there were some debates, at least with the Brits, as to whether it was, in the long term, a good idea to back certain Resistance operations.

Very true and not just in France, which had numerous idealogically aligned movements...almost as many as the number of French cheeses. Yugoslavia had other challenges, supporting the legitimate government(and king) in exile over groups that were mucg more competant and the dangers of ethnic strife.

Ultimately, it was deemed that Vichy France was illegitimate, and Occupied France was, well, occupied by a foreign power.

The question is older than that. During the Napoleonic occupation of Spain, the first modern freedom fighters were born; the original guerrilla soldiers.

Which is why the Hague convention addressed Guerillas and how they could resist within the confines of the laws of war.

While they're targets were usually French troops, Spanish collaborators and doubtless the odd civilian were taken out by the resistance to the French occupation. British backing during the Peninsular War may have set a rather undesirable precedent.

Reprisals against civilians (colaborators, informants) by summary courts was and still is illegal.

[M.Dancer]

This post illustrates my point entirely. I don't believe that they're freedom fighters.

If you don't think they are freedom fighters, why make the comment? It doesn't matter what the terrorists or they supporters think of themselves, very few people actually think of themselves as evil or cruel so it should come as no surprise that terrorists might view themselves in a more nobler light. The fact that Nazis thought they were the acme of civilization fighting for the preservation of the race did not stop us from destroying them completely.

Furthermore, what you or I think about them doesn't matter either.

Of course it does. Whether we think they are a disease that should be eradictated or the brave underdog fighting for their families dictates on what we drop on them, bombs or blankets...

What matters is what the people in the region think.

True, they once thought they could harbour Al Qaida without repercussions...

Whether we like it or not, these people have grievances real and imagined. Dropping bombs on them just adds to that list.

Bullets are preferable, yes, but bombs are that bad either. Either way they still have grievences which would compell them to attack us.

Do I want the west and myself to be safer? Absolutely, however, we have to stop acting emotionally. We've been at war in the middle east for 9 years and nothing has changed. If anythign the world is more dangerous.

It is more dangerous but I think the laws against cell phones being used by drivers has made somewhat safer.

[M.Dancer]

They're not an army with tanks, artillery pieces or infantry.

Not anymore.....all of their hardwar was captured of destroyed at the beginning of the war.

The last time major forces fought each other in a major tank battle was in the 70s between Israel and Egypt.

Not quite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

[Michael Hardner]

We've been at war in the middle east for 9 years and nothing has changed. If anythign the world is more dangerous.

I don't agree. Do you have a basis for this ?

The Taliban is out of power and Saddam Hussein is dead - that's a change. Terrorist activity in Afghanistan and Iraq is contained and is declining in the long-term. That's a change too.

A minority of people in this region are committed to eliminating the NATO forces at any cost, that's not a change. But a mainstream bulk of the population that was likely indifferent before is now being affected by NATO occupation, and some are motivated to join the enemy too.

[nicky10013]

Agreed but collateral damage is very different from directly targeting civilians

To you. If we make an orphan of a 15 year old boy I can pretty much guarantee you that it doesn't matter what the reasons behind it are, he's going to be pretty upset and lash out.

Reprisals against civilians (colaborators, informants) by summary courts was and still is illegal.

I don't dispute it, my point is that to change this kind of behaviour, other methods are needed.

[M.Dancer]

To you. If we make an orphan of a 15 year old boy I can pretty much guarantee you that it doesn't matter what the reasons behind it are, he's going to be pretty upset and lash out.

The possibility of upsetting someone during wartime has never crossed my mind...

[PIK]

73 easting was one hell of a tank battle, I guess you can't say the gulf war for being so one sided.

[nicky10013]

I don't agree. Do you have a basis for this ?

The Taliban is out of power and Saddam Hussein is dead - that's a change. Terrorist activity in Afghanistan and Iraq is contained and is declining in the long-term. That's a change too.

A minority of people in this region are committed to eliminating the NATO forces at any cost, that's not a change. But a mainstream bulk of the population that was likely indifferent before is now being affected by NATO occupation, and some are motivated to join the enemy too.

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein are symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself. You can remove them but it doesn't change anything. Iraq is also hardly contained. An additional 30,000 troops brought more security but thigns have changed little because there's just been no move towards political reconciliation between Shiaa, Tsuni and Kurds. Americans left Iraqi cities over the summer and violence went straight back to the levels it used to be at. We just don't hear much about it anymore because fewer Americans are being killed because they just aren't inside the cities anymore. Iraq is no closer to stability today than it was when the US invaded in 2003.

As for terrorism, the christmas day plot proves that terrorism itself can't be contained militarily. The guys that we're after are few in number and can move from state to state because no one knows any better. Just because they're no longer in Afghanistan doesn't mean they aren't in other nations.

[nicky10013]

The possibility of upsetting someone during wartime has never crossed my mind...

That's the whole problem and my whole point, this isn't a war in the traditional sense of the term.

[M.Dancer]

Americans left Iraqi cities over the summer and violence went straight back to the levels it used to be at. We just don't hear much about it anymore because fewer Americans are being killed because they just aren't inside the cities anymore.

Both point are untrue.

Violence is no where where it used to be...consider 2010 so far

241 civilian deaths

Consider the first two months of:

2006-1278 civilan deaths

2007-4575 "

2008-1049 "

2009-296

http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

The news get reprted and carried, whether you notice it or not is irrelevant

[Michael Hardner]

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein are symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself. You can remove them but it doesn't change anything. Iraq is also hardly contained. An additional 30,000 troops brought more security but thigns have changed little because there's just been no move towards political reconciliation between Shiaa, Tsuni and Kurds. Americans left Iraqi cities over the summer and violence went straight back to the levels it used to be at. We just don't hear much about it anymore because fewer Americans are being killed because they just aren't inside the cities anymore. Iraq is no closer to stability today than it was when the US invaded in 2003.

Interesting - do you have a cite for that ? I can't find stats on recent levels of violence.

As for terrorism, the christmas day plot proves that terrorism itself can't be contained militarily. The guys that we're after are few in number and can move from state to state because no one knows any better. Just because they're no longer in Afghanistan doesn't mean they aren't in other nations.

Ok, but all of this still constitutes a change. Rather than having a government that supports terrorism, we have a change. Now, it's admittedly fragile and not entirely bought-into government but I don't see the NATO countries leaving soon, and that's somewhat of a change in that they have more of a long-term view on what is happening.

[nicky10013]

If you don't think they are freedom fighters, why make the comment? It doesn't matter what the terrorists or they supporters think of themselves, very few people actually think of themselves as evil or cruel so it should come as no surprise that terrorists might view themselves in a more nobler light. The fact that Nazis thought they were the acme of civilization fighting for the preservation of the race did not stop us from destroying them completely.

We didn't destroy nazism completely. We destroyed their army but we didn't destroy the ideology. The allies struggled for years with de-nazification programs and they all failed completely. The only thing that changed anything was the Adenauer miracle of economic development. To think that we can actually bomb the ideas out of people is a silly mistake that has been made thousands of times over with horrible results. The American Revolution, Boer War, Vietnam, Israel with Palestine.

Of course it does. Whether we think they are a disease that should be eradictated or the brave underdog fighting for their families dictates on what we drop on them, bombs or blankets...

No, what we think doesn't matter. The harder I try to impose my will on someone, the hard they're going to resist. If Canada was invaded and they bombed your house, despite whatever reason they had, you're going to be pissed off and try to kill whoever did it.

True, they once thought they could harbour Al Qaida without repercussions...

They obviously think they still can. If they didn't, our troops wouldn't still be dying over there.

Bullets are preferable, yes, but bombs are that bad either. Either way they still have grievences which would compell them to attack us.

Essentially you just made this argument: "Well, the fire is already burning pretty nicely but lets pour gasoline on it to see what happens." Just because they may try to attack us doesn't mean we don't have the security capability to stop it. We need to focus more on security and less on ways to poke the beehive.

[M.Dancer]

That's the whole problem and my whole point, this isn't a war in the traditional sense of the term.

Well if you have your own private definition of an amred conflict, feel free to share it.

The normal definition of war still holds true...

[Michael Hardner]

Both point are untrue.

Violence is no where where it used to be...consider 2010 so far

241 civilian deaths

Consider the first two months of:

2006-1278 civilan deaths

2007-4575 "

2008-1049 "

2009-296

http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

The news get reprted and carried, whether you notice it or not is irrelevant

The Bush government changed the tack on Iraq after Bush had gone hopelessly down in the polls. The general improvement has been under reported, which tells us something about what makes headlines.

But I would be inclined to believe Nicky's quote if he had a link supporting it.