Syria Next?

[M.Dancer]

Well since you love to read my posts, unless you have a short attention span, I advocate staying out of it. I'd rather not have Canadian forces involved in Libya. I want to pull them out of Afghanistan as well.

Libya is not my country, and not my problem.

That's pretty lame, but quite normal for a troll.

[dre]

That's pretty cold. If Canada were having a crisis, how would you feel if the world took the "not my country and not my problem" attitude?

Thats a fair point but the best way to be prepared for a crisis is for us to not bankrupt ourselves by trying to act as a global welfare or policing agency.

That said... there ARE some worthy projects out there, and as long as we can afford to without having to go into hawk, I dont mind contributing. My worry with some of these middle uprisings is that some of these regimes have a degree of popular support, and we are basically picking one side in a civil war. Mostly I just think we need to think these things through better.

[Shady]

Well since you love to read my posts, unless you have a short attention span, I advocate staying out of it. I'd rather not have Canadian forces involved in Libya. I want to pull them out of Afghanistan as well.

Libya is not my country, and not my problem.

While I agree with you that NATO shouldn't have gotten involved in Libya. It wasn't because it's not my country, and not my problem. That's fairly juvenile, and could be applied to pretty much every situation over the last century.

[GostHacked]

That's pretty cold. If Canada were having a crisis, how would you feel if the world took the "not my country and not my problem" attitude?

Yes it is a cold approach. But where is the line drawn. There are many other countries on the planet going through civil wars like Libya and now Syria. If we are going in for humanitarian reasons, then at least be consistant about it. There are places that have gone through civil wars where we could not even point them out on a map. Many of them underreported or not reported at all.

Why Libya and not Syria?

Why Libya and not Sudan? Yemen? Bahrain? Morocco? Algeria?

Why the Ivory Coast?

Was Libya an easy target because Gaddafi was not liked by the west, arabs and the east? Did it help the Arab League gave the OK as well?

The reason Egypt an Tunisia was left to their devices was because Mubarek and Ben-Ali did step down? Have we forgotten about Egypt or Tunisia at all? Egypt is still going through issues and there have been reports of police and military firing on civilians. How many have heard that?

So if we go into Libya for these humanitarian reasons, what is the deal with not doing it in every country that is going through this crisis?

[Guest American Woman]

Yes it is a cold approach. But where is the line drawn. There are many other countries on the planet going through civil wars like Libya and now Syria. If we are going in for humanitarian reasons, then at least be consistant about it. There are places that have gone through civil wars where we could not even point them out on a map. Many of them underreported or not reported at all.

Not sure what your point is here. Because we don't help everyone we shouldn't help anyone? If someone gives to cancer research, is your response 'there are many other diseases out there on the planet, so if you're going to give to cancer, then at least be consistent about it and give to every disease, even those that are underreported or not reported at all?' Same could be applied to someone doing research on AIDS. Should they be doing research on every disease in order to be 'consistent?' And is it necessary to be consistent in such instances? If so, why? Does it diminish the help that is being given not to be consistent?

Why Libya and not Syria?

Why Libya and not Sudan? Yemen? Bahrain? Morocco? Algeria?

Why the Ivory Coast?

Does it matter? Is the help any less valuable/effective to the country who is receiving help because every country isn't receiving it? Does it make sense to help no one since we clearly do not have the means to help everyone? Isn't the world a better place if conditions in even one of those places improves?

Was Libya an easy target because Gaddafi was not liked by the west, arabs and the east? Did it help the Arab League gave the OK as well?

Perhaps it did help, making a level of success there more probable than somewhere else. Makes sense to help where the greatest likelihood of that help actually helping exists.

The reason Egypt an Tunisia was left to their devices was because Mubarek and Ben-Ali did step down? Have we forgotten about Egypt or Tunisia at all? Egypt is still going through issues and there have been reports of police and military firing on civilians. How many have heard that?

What difference does how many people have heard of it make? Should we not help one nation because we aren't hearing about what's going on in another? That makes no sense at all.

So if we go into Libya for these humanitarian reasons, what is the deal with not doing it in every country that is going through this crisis?

As I said, it makes sense to go where the greatest possibility of success exits. It also makes sense to go where the help will ultimately do the most good, and for the most people is a factor, too. Obviously we can't be everywhere, doing everything. That doesn't lessen the help that is being given. It's still important to that nation and perhaps others who are affected by what goes on in that nation. The idea that unless we help/can help everyone we should help no one makes no sense at all; and the "not my country not my problem" mindset is very cold and self centered. I hate to think what kind of world we'd be living in if everyone adopted and acted on that mindset.

[bloodyminded]

So if we go into Libya for these humanitarian reasons, what is the deal with not doing it in every country that is going through this crisis?

If you suggest--and I think you do--that our motives for this or that intervention are not necessarily aligned with the noble claims that are made, I have a suspicion you're correct. It's often dificult to suss out, and is a complex business.

But as a philosophy of "why here but not there," all things being equal, I disagree. If any of our interventions are justified, then that speaks for itself, I think, or close to it. The reponsibility would be to expend the most energy on that which has the most likely chance of success, which was one American Woman's points.

[dre]

But as a philosophy of "why here but not there," all things being equal, I disagree. If any of our interventions are justified, then that speaks for itself, I think, or close to it. The reponsibility would be to expend the most energy on that which has the most likely chance of success, which was one American Woman's points.

Yeah but based on your criteria most of these military interventions would never even be considered because theyre very hard to do, and theres tons of other projects that are actually pretty easy to do... places where millions of people are literally BEGGING for our help, and where our participation would be pretty much uncontraversial.

If the goal is an altruistic need to help others that are in trouble, my guess is you would get ten times the bang for your buck delivering food and medicine than you do by militarily intervening in someone elses civil war.

[GostHacked]

Yeah but based on your criteria most of these military interventions would never even be considered because theyre very hard to do, and theres tons of other projects that are actually pretty easy to do... places where millions of people are literally BEGGING for our help, and where our participation would be pretty much uncontraversial.

Exactly. There are other places of the world that are really asking for help and needing the help, why are we not there? What is this big war machine used for other than war? If we wanted peace, security and respect for all, why do we need to always be building a bigger gun?

If the goal is an altruistic need to help others that are in trouble, my guess is you would get ten times the bang for your buck delivering food and medicine than you do by militarily intervening in someone elses civil war.

The money invested in the militaries around the world. Even if nations took a small slice out of the military budgets, and devote it for true nation building, you'd probably be able to fix all the problems on the planet and at the same time not piss off a hell of a lot of people. It's like perpetual chaos is wanted, because there is money to be had. Like BC says ... economics over virtue.

[GostHacked]

If you suggest--and I think you do--that our motives for this or that intervention are not necessarily aligned with the noble claims that are made, I have a suspicion you're correct. It's often dificult to suss out, and is a complex business.

That is it 'in a nutshell' of my view, indeed.

But as a philosophy of "why here but not there," all things being equal, I disagree. If any of our interventions are justified, then that speaks for itself, I think, or close to it. The reponsibility would be to expend the most energy on that which has the most likely chance of success, which was one American Woman's points.

I would hope that to be true.

[bloodyminded]

Yeah but based on your criteria most of these military interventions would never even be considered because theyre very hard to do, and theres tons of other projects that are actually pretty easy to do... places where millions of people are literally BEGGING for our help, and where our participation would be pretty much uncontraversial.

If the goal is an altruistic need to help others that are in trouble, my guess is you would get ten times the bang for your buck delivering food and medicine than you do by militarily intervening in someone elses civil war.

I agree with you word-for-word.

I only object to what might or might not be an implication of the remarks to which I responded: that the military interventions are plainly justified, but we're hypocritical when we avoid certain others. I'm not at all convinced that they're justified...I'm not convinced by a single one since WW2, in fact. My point was more of an academic one: if they're justified, then they're justified regardless of our hypocrisy elsewhere.

I'm not suggesting that they are justified, and that this is a given. Not one bit.

[bloodyminded]

That is it 'in a nutshell' of my view, indeed.

I would hope that to be true.

Then we're not in disagreement at all. I think I misread your post.

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly. There are other places of the world that are really asking for help and needing the help, why are we not there?

"Not [our] country and not [our] problem?"

The money invested in the militaries around the world. Even if nations took a small slice out of the military budgets, and devote it for true nation building, you'd probably be able to fix all the problems on the planet and at the same time not piss off a hell of a lot of people. It's like perpetual chaos is wanted, because there is money to be had. Like BC says ... economics over virtue.

That's a far cry from "not my country and not my problem." Seems as if you've completely backpedaled from your original sentiment.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I'm not suggesting that they are justified, and that this is a given. Not one bit.

Then why have such a soft interventionist spot for WW2? Scale and magnitude do not change the underlying criteria, not even when a commonwealth king insists that they do.

[bloodyminded]

Then why have such a soft interventionist spot for WW2? Scale and magnitude do not change the underlying criteria, not even when a commonwealth king insists that they do.

It could well be that the in-the-box traditional thinking has coloured my view on this least controversial (at least in retrospect) of all modern wars, yes.

[bush_cheney2004]

It could well be that the in-the-box traditional thinking has coloured my view on this least controversial (at least in retrospect) of all modern wars, yes.

OK....understandable, but we are still left with very subjective criteria and expectations. St. Augustine simply won't do.

[bloodyminded]

OK....understandable, but we are still left with very subjective criteria and expectations. St. Augustine simply won't do.

I admit it's subjective as hell, but the Augustine reference has passed me completely by.

[GostHacked]

"Not [our] country and not [our] problem?"

It really is not my problem, or your problem what is happening in Libya or Syria. However the governments use the terms like 'protecting our interests' which is wide open to interperetation. Iraq and Afghanistan are still going through issues, and we still have forces in those countries. It's not about humanitarian aid, it is about expanding the empire. The US has their largest foreign base in Iraq. You think the US will ever pull out of there after building such a large base? Nope.

That's a far cry from "not my country and not my problem." Seems as if you've completely backpedaled from your original sentiment.

In terms of a war for humanitarian aid, that is not happening in Libya, so in that case, yes, not my country, not my problem. If it's Italy's problem let them sort it out. Libya did not attack anyone in NATO, so there is no need to 'defend' against an attack from them. It is purely a civil war. Once we start to take sides in civil wars (like we have in the past) most of the time it just ends up radicalizing the other half which then can spawn out terrorists, which will come back to haunt us later on. I had said something like this a few pages ago, but now I hope I am making myself a little more clearer. Now that we've seen more developements in Libya and Syria.

[GostHacked]

Then we're not in disagreement at all. I think I misread your post.

Sometimes I end up Oleg'ing a post here and there. It's hard to really get into it with just a short paragraph or two.

[bloodyminded]

Sometimes I end up Oleg'ing a post here and there. It's hard to really get into it with just a short paragraph or two.

Oleg'ing a post. Sure, I can identify.

[dre]

I agree with you word-for-word.

I only object to what might or might not be an implication of the remarks to which I responded: that the military interventions are plainly justified, but we're hypocritical when we avoid certain others. I'm not at all convinced that they're justified...I'm not convinced by a single one since WW2, in fact. My point was more of an academic one: if they're justified, then they're justified regardless of our hypocrisy elsewhere.

I'm not suggesting that they are justified, and that this is a given. Not one bit.

Yeah youve been very clear on this kind of stuff, and I didnt read your post as justification for anything. I was really just pointing that out what would happen if the logic you described (which is right) was actually applied.

[bush_cheney2004]

I admit it's subjective as hell, but the Augustine reference has passed me completely by.

Augustine of Hippo is credited with formulating the elements of modern Just War theory.

[bloodyminded]

Augustine of Hippo is credited with formulating the elements of modern Just War theory.

Ok, I breezed through it on wiki, for what it's worth. And yes, it's all very familiar; pretty interesting.

[Moonlight Graham]

Things look ugly in Syria. Interestingly, Obama and some other European leaders (not sure about Harper) have been very outspoken about the situation, much different to how they initially handles Syria. Guess they don't same interests with them.

[Guest American Woman]

It really is not my problem, or your problem what is happening in Libya or Syria. However the governments use the terms like 'protecting our interests' which is wide open to interperetation.

Maybe they are protecting our interests; I wouldn't doubt if that's part of the reason for being there. But regardless, I'm not so sure what's happening in Libya or Syria isn't ultimately our problem, or more to the point, couldn't become our problem.

Iraq and Afghanistan are still going through issues, and we still have forces in those countries. It's not about humanitarian aid, it is about expanding the empire.

That's how you see it. I don't believe that Canada or the U.S. are tying to expand their empire. I'm not saying it's about humanitarian aid either, but then, I'm not aware of the U.S. ever claiming that it was. I know Canada takes that stance regarding Afghanistan, but as far as I'm aware, the U.S. has always said it was about fighting terrorism after 9-11. Bush et al called Iraq "Operation Iraqi Freedom," for PR purposes one can only assume, but I've always thought that was ridiculous and never felt as if he were saying that's why we were there. I think he pushed it as a nice side effect regarding getting rid of Saddam, and of course many people hoped, and still hope, that would be the case, but I don't think he ever pushed humanitarian reasons as our reason for being there.

The US has their largest foreign base in Iraq. You think the US will ever pull out of there after building such a large base? Nope.

"Ever?" Yeah, I think they will at some point. I don't think they'll be there until the end of time.

In terms of a war for humanitarian aid, that is not happening in Libya, so in that case, yes, not my country, not my problem.

I think it is. I think the purpose is to help those rebelling against Gaddafi. Wouldn't that fall under "humanitarian?"

If it's Italy's problem let them sort it out. Libya did not attack anyone in NATO, so there is no need to 'defend' against an attack from them. It is purely a civil war. Once we start to take sides in civil wars (like we have in the past) most of the time it just ends up radicalizing the other half which then can spawn out terrorists, which will come back to haunt us later on. I had said something like this a few pages ago, but now I hope I am making myself a little more clearer. Now that we've seen more developements in Libya and Syria.

I understand your point of view, but I disagree we should never involve ourselves in a Civil War. Involvement in others' civil wars has been done in the past, with positive results. I think there's a time when it's the right thing to involve ourselves in a revolt against an oppressive regime, ie: another's civil war. That's not to say we should -- we aren't obligated to do what's right all the time, nor do we have the means to do so -- but rather to say that it's not always wrong, either.

At any rate, you are making yourself clearer. As I said, I understand your point of view more than I did previously.

[GostHacked]

Maybe they are protecting our interests; I wouldn't doubt if that's part of the reason for being there. But regardless, I'm not so sure what's happening in Libya or Syria isn't ultimately our problem, or more to the point, couldn't become our problem.

I keep hearing that line, but what exactly are those 'interests'? Because part of what you are saying below is dependant on what those interests really are.

That's how you see it. I don't believe that Canada or the U.S. are tying to expand their empire. I'm not saying it's about humanitarian aid either, but then, I'm not aware of the U.S. ever claiming that it was. I know Canada takes that stance regarding Afghanistan, but as far as I'm aware, the U.S. has always said it was about fighting terrorism after 9-11. Bush et al called Iraq "Operation Iraqi Freedom," for PR purposes one can only assume, but I've always thought that was ridiculous and never felt as if he were saying that's why we were there. I think he pushed it as a nice side effect regarding getting rid of Saddam, and of course many people hoped, and still hope, that would be the case, but I don't think he ever pushed humanitarian reasons as our reason for being there.

I think it is. I think the purpose is to help those rebelling against Gaddafi. Wouldn't that fall under "humanitarian?"

I see it more as a western created problem in order to provide a solution. British SAS soldiers were on the ground weeks before the uprisings started to take hold. I still have not found any evidence of US special forces at that time.

At any rate, you are making yourself clearer. As I said, I understand your point of view more than I did previously.

It sometimes takes a while to formulate the thoughts.