ToadBrother Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) According to you, there was no need because the UN made up our minds for us. So which is it M. Dancer? And that was exactly to be debated this week in the HOC. So no, we had not made the decision yet. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/21/pol-libya-debate.html I don't understand your problem. First of all, our constitution does not grant Parliament the right to declare war, that is a prerogative of the Queen on the advice of her ministers. Traditionally, where Canadian forces are involved in combat, there are debates in Parliament, seeing as Parliament pays for these things. But on a larger scale, when there is a UN-sanctioned action (like the resolutions against Iraq in 1991), it is the UN, as the representative of the international community, which decides if military action is required and then those nations willing and able to contribute who, under the auspices of the UN Security Council Resolution take on a military or support role. There is no declaration of war against the state or states in question, because the members of the UN, as signatories to it, are not acting on their own, but rather as part of an international force. Do you not understand how the UN works? Canada and the US did not declare war on North Korea, they were acting as members of the UN on a Security Council Resolution. I would have taken you for a strong multilateralist, but I guess I was wrong. Edited March 21, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 According to you, there was no need because the UN made up our minds for us. So which is it M. Dancer? You are confused. You asked where was the declaration of war, or why we did not declare war. I told you. The UN authorized the action, no declaration is needed. After that it is up to the member nations to decide if they participate. We decided. If you want it to be debated...great. I don't think the opposition will though...doesn't look good to be not on side with a multi lateral decision one day, and not the next. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 You do realize, I hope, that the whole point of the UN is as a venue to mediate disputes and, if action is necessary, to get wide-based approval for that action. The point is to avoid unilateral declarations of war. So we have to go in based on a UN declaration? If Canada officially delcares war on Libya, that would open us up to attacks, correct? But with the UN making the decision, no individual country is responsible, and no retaliation can happen because of the UN resolution, right? It is a war, no matter how people frame it. Canada, the US, and the UK (and others) have declared war on Libya through the UN. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 After that it is up to the member nations to decide if they participate. We decided. Wrong, I quoted the article that is was to be debated this week in the House of Commons. The decision was already made before the debate took place. Quote
eyeball Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 So why have we not invaded the likes of China because of their tyrannical rule? We have been, with our corporations and manufacturing industries. It is an act of war. Was there any formal declaration of war made in Canada or the parliament? No? The economy is an act of war, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 So we have to go in based on a UN declaration? You aren't that seriously gormless are you? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 Wrong, I quoted the article that is was to be debated this week in the House of Commons. The decision was already made before the debate took place. I am not wrong until it is debated. I can wager the debate will not touch on why we are there, should we be there or whether a declaration of war is needed. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 I would have taken you for a strong multilateralist, but I guess I was wrong. The fallacy there, the way I see it, is that we are not going there for humanitarian efforts. It's more or less part of a bigger picture where Libya is just the beginning, well actually it started with Afghanistan then Iraq ..... There was a video clip with Wesley Clark who made that claim I posted some time back. What you see now is part of a long term plan that has already been in place for some time. This kind of thing does not happen overnight, and without reason. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 NDP Leader Jack Layton urged the Canadian government to "unequivocally" express its support for democracy in Libya."Authorities have been engaged in atrocities against the country's civilian population. New Democrats condemn the Libyan regime's use of deadly force - including military aircraft - against civilians," Layton said in a statement Tuesday. "Canada should also be working with its international partners to bring the issue to the UN Security Council and work to establish a no-fly zone in Libya's airspace," he added. Jack "wardog" Layton Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 I am not wrong until it is debated. It has not been debated yet, that's the point. So you are wrong. You said there was no debate needed, because the UN made the choice. But you make the claim you are not wrong because the debate has not happened yet. Try again. I can wager the debate will not touch on why we are there, should we be there or whether a declaration of war is needed. Well, the debate is moot, because the decision has already been made, and Canada has already sent fighters over. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 So we have to go in based on a UN declaration? Yup, just like the Korean War. If Canada officially delcares war on Libya, that would open us up to attacks, correct? Why would Canada declare war on Libya? And anyone who wanted to attack Canada would certainly do so with or without a declaration. But with the UN making the decision, no individual country is responsible, and no retaliation can happen because of the UN resolution, right? I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. Retaliation by whom? It is a war, no matter how people frame it. Canada, the US, and the UK (and others) have declared war on Libya through the UN. They haven't in any legal sense of the word. It is, of course, a war in the very general sense that some countries are attacking the forces of one country, but as a legal matter, no, this is not a war. This is a UN-sanctioned military action. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 They haven't in any legal sense of the word. It is, of course, a war in the very general sense that some countries are attacking the forces of one country, but as a legal matter, no, this is not a war. This is a UN-sanctioned military action. So it's all in how you phrase it. It is a war. The wording is just splitting hairs and semantics. Quote
bloodyminded Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) ............... Edited March 21, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
M.Dancer Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 So it's all in how you phrase it. It is a war. The wording is just splitting hairs and semantics. ..and so? Do you think some unnecessary diplomatic letter will some how make it better? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ToadBrother Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 The fallacy there, the way I see it, is that we are not going there for humanitarian efforts. We're certainly not going in for oil. Libya produces about 1% at most of global output. It's an important source of oil for neighboring Mediterranean states, but globally, it's a drop in the bucket. Alberta is a bigger player in the oil markets. It's more or less part of a bigger picture where Libya is just the beginning, well actually it started with Afghanistan then Iraq ..... There was a video clip with Wesley Clark who made that claim I posted some time back. What you see now is part of a long term plan that has already been in place for some time. This kind of thing does not happen overnight, and without reason. This is your conspiracy narrative. I see no reason to buy it. From everything I've seen the reason to go into Libya is: 1. Gaddafi is using his own forces and hired mercenaries in indiscriminate attacks meant not only to destroy rebel opposition but to target the larger populations in the areas he has lost control of. 1a. Worse than even his own army, Gaddafi has in fact imported mercenaries from elsewhere. He is actually paying foreigners to threaten and kill his own people. 2. To prevent a humanitarian disaster with the Libyan peoples' own government killing them and tens or hundreds of thousands of Libyans fleeing the country at a time when the region is already destabilized. The US, by everything we can tell, held back for a helluva long time. It would have made more sense to go in a couple of weeks ago when the rebels were far better positioned. Smashing Gaddafi's air capacity then would have caused severe problems for the forces he was commanding (and paying for) and likely would have reduced casualties substantially. But President Obama, who seems quite dedicated to the multilateralism he has espoused since he campaigned for President, sought a wide-base of support, going to the UN Security Council, clearly believing that unilateral action by the US and its allies would lack the legitimacy he believes is necessary for such actions. In other words, I don't buy your narrative at all. Libya is a minor oil producing country. Even if it was cut off, it would have little effect on global supply, and would cause at best regional supply problems. Other than the nearly-abortive civil war giving the speculators some fun and profit (for no good reason other than they look at ways to pump up the price of a barrel for short term profits), there was no risk to global supply. In fact, where there are substantial risks to supply, as with the uprisings in some of the Gulf states, the US has very clearly made it be known that while it does not support harsh reprisals on protesters, it very much is interested in stability and, with some apprehension, is very clearly standing by those governments. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) So it's all in how you phrase it. It is a war. The wording is just splitting hairs and semantics. It is a war in a general sense, not in a legal sense. Surely you not so naive as to believe that the legal sense of any given concept is often much narrower than in general usage. Since declarations of war are in fact very very narrow concepts, both on an international level and on the level of domestic constitutions, the general sense of the word doesn't really apply. Edited March 21, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 It is a war in a general sense, not in a legal sense. Surely you not so naive as to believe that the legal sense of any given concept is often much narrower than in general usage. Since declarations of war are in fact very very narrow concepts, both on an international level and on the level of domestic constitutions, the general sense of the word doesn't really apply. No, not naive. But I guess it's all in the wording, of being a war without being a war. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 No, not naive. But I guess it's all in the wording, of being a war without being a war. A legal declaration of war, contains among other things, a reason to war, demands and possible ways to end the conflict. Usually the end of a legal declaration of war is an armistice or a surrender. There is no need for any of the above from any of the belligerents attacking the Ghaddafi regime. He will not be around to surrender. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ToadBrother Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 A legal declaration of war, contains among other things, a reason to war, demands and possible ways to end the conflict. Usually the end of a legal declaration of war is an armistice or a surrender. There is no need for any of the above from any of the belligerents attacking the Ghaddafi regime. He will not be around to surrender. Well, more to the point, a UN Security Council resolution will have its requirements. In effect, it is the United Nations that is declaring war, not any particular nation. Those nations that contribute (one way or the other) to the effort are analogous to an army. Armies prosecute wars, they do not start them nor do they officially end them (though obviously an army's conduct is going to determine how it ends). The Security Council has stated what must happen for hostilities to cease, Gaddafi, even as his foreign minister was claiming the cease fire was being obeyed, made it clear that he would not abide by the terms of the Resolution, so his air force has been crushed. Without the necessary air support, the Libyan army units loyal to Gaddafi and those paid mercenaries are going to have a lot tougher time of it, and the odds will be evened out. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 A legal declaration of war, contains among other things, a reason to war, demands and possible ways to end the conflict. Usually the end of a legal declaration of war is an armistice or a surrender. There is no need for any of the above from any of the belligerents attacking the Ghaddafi regime. He will not be around to surrender. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12802939 Libyan government spokesman Ibrahim Musa said the strike had targeted an "administrative building"Allied forces carrying out air strikes in Libya say Colonel Muammar Gaddafi himself is not a target, despite an overnight attack against his compound. The chief of UK armed forces said that was "not allowed" under the UN resolution on protecting civilians. A French spokesman said that even if the Libyan leader's exact location was known, he would not be fired on. At the weekend the coalition launched strikes against Col Gaddafi's forces, which have been fighting rebels. On Sunday UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox said targeting Col Gaddafi could "potentially be a possibility". But on Monday Britain's chief of defence Staff, Sir David Richards, said he was "absolutely not" a target. "It's not allowed under the UN resolution," he added Quote
GWiz Posted March 21, 2011 Author Report Posted March 21, 2011 It is an act of war. Was there any formal declaration of war made in Canada or the parliament? No? That will happen if Canada is still taking part 3 months in... That's the law... Regardless of what the Canadian Government will look like at that point in TIME... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 That will happen if Canada is still taking part 3 months in... That's the law... Regardless of what the Canadian Government will look like at that point in TIME... We are going to be there for the long run, remember. Canada was not to be in Afghanistan this long. And the pull out date keeps getting pushed back. Quote
GWiz Posted March 21, 2011 Author Report Posted March 21, 2011 We are going to be there for the long run, remember. Canada was not to be in Afghanistan this long. And the pull out date keeps getting pushed back. After 3 months any use of the Canadian Military has to be debated in Parliament and then voted on and authority given by Parliament which then has to be approved by the GG as Canada's Head of State and therefore head of Canada's Military... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
M.Dancer Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 We are going to be there for the long run, remember. Canada was not to be in Afghanistan this long. Cite Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 Cite You think 2011 will be the year Canada pulls out of Afghanistan? Think again. We had a debate in 2008 which then extended the mission to 2011. I should not need to spoon feed you, but since you got your bib on. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/281712 Canada's involvement in Afghanistan's civil war has generated controversy in Canada, and the small gains made in Afghanistan have come at a high price for the Canadian Armed Forces. In February 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper proposed that Canada should extend its stay in Afghanistan and not withdraw until 2011. Parliament voted to approve the extension, but the Conservative party was criticized for not providing clearer direction on Canada's withdrawal. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/792975--ottawa-mum-on-canada-s-future-in-afghanistan Dictating the need for a decision is the 2008 parliamentary motion, a compromise reached between the Liberals and Conservatives, that extended the mission by two years on the condition that Canada would end its military presence in Kandahar starting in July, 2011 with the pull-out complete by December, 2011. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.