Canadian army under UN rule

[PIK]

He seemed to say he will not allow our army to leave our country without the UN saying so, and since russia and china has a veto ,does it mean those 2 will really be in charge of our army or is this somehow a code word for gutting the military again.

Edited April 15, 2011 by PIK

[scouterjim]

He seemed to say he will not allow our army to leave our country without the UN saying so, and since russia and china has a veto ,does it mean those 2 will really be in charge of our army or is this somehow a code word for gutting the military again.

Iggy is a Liberal. The Liberals HATE the military. It is easier to put the onus of deployment on somebody else.

[wyly]

He seemed to say he will not allow our army to leave our country without the UN saying so, and since russia and china has a veto ,does it mean those 2 will really be in charge of our army or is this somehow a code word for gutting the military again.

what it means is you haven't a clue as to what he said...you have such a poor grasp of what is said maybe you should refrain from voting...

[Keepitsimple]

what it means is you haven't a clue as to what he said...you have such a poor grasp of what is said maybe you should refrain from voting...

He opened his mouth without thinking it through.....and he seems to have changed his tune with his newfound respect for the UN. He makes it up as he goes along. As a professor, he's used to being the smartest man in the room where nobody challenges him.....but those darn pesky reporters have the gall.....

GATINEAU, QUE. - Michael Ignatieff has begun the second half of the federal election campaign with a partial retreat from some of his comments from Wednesday night’s debate. During the French-language leaders’ debate, the Liberal chief was adamant that he’d let the United Nations Security Council make the ultimate call on whether to send Canadian troops abroad.

“The Canadian army must never be used outside the country without the authorization of the UN,” Ignatieff told his debate partners.

......................................

Then he dialed back his debate rhetoric and admitted there could be exceptions.

“Canada has always believed as a matter of international law, since the creation of the UN in 1945, that the use of force in international affairs should be authorized by the Security Council of the United Nations,” he said. “And when you can’t get authorization from the Security Council of the United Nations, you’d better have an extremely good case in which you can use force. There have been cases. Let’s be perfectly honest, in Kosovo, where international authorization for the use of force was not granted.”

.......................................

But the Liberal leader hasn’t always been enthusiastic about the UN.

“Well, the UN screwed up in Rwanda, it screwed up in Bosnia — it screws up most of the time,” Ignatieff is quoted as saying in a Maclean’s magazine article in June, 2003. “The United Nations is a messy, wasteful, log-rolling organization.”

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/14/17991346.html

[GostHacked]

Thing is, our military already gets its marching orders from the UN (and NATO). The invasion of Libya kind of proves that. I don't agree with it. Canada should be able to make up it's own mind when it comes to foreign intervention.

[eyeball]

Thing is, our military already gets its marching orders from the UN (and NATO). The invasion of Libya kind of proves that. I don't agree with it. Canada should be able to make up it's own mind when it comes to foreign intervention.

I'd rather that Canadians be the one's who directly decide (via referendum) if Canada should intervene in a foreign military venture.

Given the import of such a decision and to establish a firm unequivocal commitment exists, a super-majority of Canadians should be required.

Edited April 15, 2011 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

Thing is, our military already gets its marching orders from the UN (and NATO). The invasion of Libya kind of proves that. I don't agree with it. Canada should be able to make up it's own mind when it comes to foreign intervention.

Quite incorrect.

Bosnia, Haiti proves that

[g_bambino]

Given the import of such a decision and to establish a firm unequivocal commitment exists, a super-majority of Canadians should be required.

And by the time the referendum has been set up, carried out, and counted, the conflict will be over. Dissappointing to those looking for Canadian help, disasterous when it's us who need to defend ourselves.

[Bob]

A reasonable position would be as follows: Canada will do what's right and protect our interests where justifiable and necessary - and that the UN is not the arbiter of what is right and justifiable towards our interests. In events where Canada is faced with the decision of whether or not to engage foreign actors militarily, Canada will do what it reasonably can to make its case to the UN if it so chooses to utilize its military, but in the end the UN will not determine Canada's actions - Canada will determine its own actions. The UN does not govern or supersede Canada, contrary to what many amateur legalists seem to think.

What Ignatieff is doing, and he's right to be called on it, is appealing to the internationalist component of his base, who have an ignorant/religious belief in the UN, without being aware of how this broken institution actually operates. Another thing he is doing is subtly trying to reawaken the anti-American sentiment among some of his supporters, who often used false portrayals of Bush as a unilateralist (which he was not), by distinguishing himself as a leader who "plays by the rules"(otherwise known as deferring to the political pressure of our enemies). Perhaps he was staking out this hollow position in an attempt to portray Harper as a "Bush-style unilateralist", without giving thought to how this position actually harms him when placed under simple scrutiny exposing hypocrisy and

shortsightedness.

For me personally, nothing frightens me more than such positions. Canada must never defer to the UN, and must always lead and zealously move forward towards her own interests. Canada should lead, and not follow. It was completely unsurprising to read Ignaiteff's statements, as it's clear what ideological image he is trying to build for himself and what types of Canadians he is trying to appeal to.

[Bob]

Thing is, our military already gets its marching orders from the UN (and NATO). The invasion of Libya kind of proves that. I don't agree with it. Canada should be able to make up it's own mind when it comes to foreign intervention.

That's not true, that is an example of Harper playing politics with our military - albeit on a small scale. Harper could have, and should have, said no to Libyan-involvement. In other words, Canada didn't have to participate, but Harper deferred to UN (American and European, specifically) pressure. This is obviously ironic and likely hypocritical from the Harper government.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

I'd rather that Canadians be the one's who directly decide (via referendum) if Canada should intervene in a foreign military venture.

Given the import of such a decision and to establish a firm unequivocal commitment exists, a super-majority of Canadians should be required.

And I believe it should be decided on by the executive.

[M.Dancer]

And by the time the referendum has been set up, carried out, and counted, the conflict will be over. Dissappointing to those looking for Canadian help, disasterous when it's us who need to defend ourselves.

That;s his idea...

[GostHacked]

Quite incorrect.

Bosnia, Haiti proves that

Well, with Haiti and Bosina we still had some control over our own military, not that I agree with those interventions. I think something has changed since then. And what exactly are our 'interests' in Libya anyways?

[Bob]

Well, with Haiti and Bosina we still had some control over our own military, not that I agree with those interventions. I think something has changed since then. And what exactly are our 'interests' in Libya anyways?

Our "interests" are to defer to European pressures, because the EU consumes 80% of Libya's oil exports. While doing so, Harper will ride the spin of saying that we're fighting for the "freedom of the Libyan people", without knowing the first thing about who exactly these "rebels" are, and accepting the mainstream media's reporting of these people as "freedom fighters". It's ridiculous.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

I'm inclined to sympathize with some of the anti-UN voices on this issue, though I don't hold their religious belief that poor little noble heroes like Canada or the United States can be trusted to act "rightly," if only the UN would get out of the way...that's laughable nonsense, childish and petulant and premised on fairy-tale ideas of beneficent nations (us and our allies, of course) surrounded by an ungrateful and sinister world.

Hence the UN, an inherently flawed but still principled notion, based on the unflattering but evident truism that no nations can be trusted.

But yes, the inherent flaws have proven probably larger than initially envisioned.

The idea of a reflexive "internationalism" is troublesome for a couple reasons (one which the anti-UN voices always omit...perhaps tellingly): first, yes, of course there is an issue of being beholden to people who can be outright wrong.

But--and this is directly related--just because the UN does sign onto this or that military intervention, or what have you, does not make the intervention right.

I doubt this is an arguable point.

I find the idea of "oppose the war unless the UN okays it" to be a bit odd; it's multilateralism as absolute principle, which doesn't quite make sense; it also means you don't oppose a war (any war) on its own grounds, but rather because a few more countries' leaders aren't in agreement.

[bloodyminded]

Our "interests" are to defer to European pressures, because the EU consumes 80% of Libya's oil exports. While doing so, Harper will ride the spin of saying that we're fighting for the "freedom of the Libyan people", without knowing the first thing about who exactly these "rebels" are, and accepting the mainstream media's reporting of these people as "freedom fighters". It's ridiculous.

I agree. And it's not that I'm declaratively stating that the rebels aren't legitimate, or that we aren't backing "freedom fighters."

It's that we shouldn't be taking this as a given, as a premise. At best--at best--it's bound to be far more complicated. It could be hogwash for all I know.

[GostHacked]

Our "interests" are to defer to European pressures, because the EU consumes 80% of Libya's oil exports. While doing so, Harper will ride the spin of saying that we're fighting for the "freedom of the Libyan people", without knowing the first thing about who exactly these "rebels" are, and accepting the mainstream media's reporting of these people as "freedom fighters". It's ridiculous.

It was already spun for freedom and humanitarian aid, in case you missed it. But damn, let Europe and especialy Italy solve this problem. It really is none of Canada's concern. No NATO country was attacked, so there is really no need or real reason to get involved in this conflict.

And I agree with what you say on these rebels. We really have no idea of who they are. Gadaffi says that the rebels are made entirely or partially of Al-Queda. Something that Ben-Ali of Tunisa, Assad of Syria, Mubarek of Egypt, Saleh of Yemen, all of them say Al-queda or foreign fighters are the cause of the problems. If there is truth to this, then why is the west helping these 'rebels' (al-queda) to overthrow the governments of those countries? I think that can be a thread on its own.

[WIP]

He seemed to say he will not allow our army to leave our country without the UN saying so, and since russia and china has a veto ,does it mean those 2 will really be in charge of our army or is this somehow a code word for gutting the military again.

How about if we have a Canadian Armed Forces that sticks to its principle mandate of defending our shores and borders? Even with a minority government, Harper has turned Canada from being a potential honest broker internationally, into a lap dog of the United States. We are just another proxy ally on beck and call to carry out the wishes of the Whitehouse and the Pentagon...no different than Ecuador, the Georgian Republic, Kazakhstan, and whole host of other lackeys. Why should Canada have any involvement with Libya? And why was Harper so quick to jump in and carry out U.S. foreign policy interests? And why would anyone with an ounce of sense want to give Harper full control of the wheel with a majority government?

[Tilter]

Iggy is a Liberal. The Liberals HATE the military. It is easier to put the onus of deployment on somebody else.

Having been in the Military I have to say that you are Totally Wrong.

The Liberals, till the Kreetin era, have always bee the friend of the Military. The military have always voted Liberal. I wonder if that's why "Deif the Chief" killed the best fighter in the world back in the day :ph34r:

Ignatieff is part of the elite, a collegian a member of the "If you can't do, teach". His total military experience is playing with cap guns & cowboys & Indians as a child. Of course, that's also a resume of his political experience. He is as well suited to determine what Fighter jets should replace our 35 year old fighters as he is to be Prime Minister of Canada. If it wren't for the Torstar syndicate he would be a totally unknown Professor who should have stayed where he tenure.

I wonder if he realizes how little job security a politician has here being no union for pols :lol:

Just remember--- A vote for Iggy is a vote for a soon to be forgotten failed pol.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Tilter

[g_bambino]

Why should Canada have any involvement with Libya?

NATO.

[WIP]

NATO.

Glad you mentioned it! Why the hell does NATO even exist today, 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union (the stated reason for its creation), and why have successive U.S. administrations continually pushed NATO membership further and further east ever since? The purpose of NATO today is to carry out the global interests of the world's largest multinational corporations; which each have net value greater than most of the nations on Earth.

NATO's main role on the world stage seems to have more to do with crippling the U.N. -- which because of the policy of each nation having an equal vote in the General Assembly, has many times frustrated Western global interests to extract resources and trap third world populations as menial labourers, often working under unsafe and unhealthy conditions.

[GostHacked]

NATO.

Care to eleborate on that at all?

[PIK]

what it means is you haven't a clue as to what he said...you have such a poor grasp of what is said maybe you should refrain from voting...

He has no clue to what he said ,which means you have no clue to what he said.

[g_bambino]

Care to eleborate on that at all?

What more elaboration is needed? The no-fly zone over Libya is overseen by NATO, of which Canada is a part.

[PIK]

I'd rather that Canadians be the one's who directly decide (via referendum) if Canada should intervene in a foreign military venture.

Given the import of such a decision and to establish a firm unequivocal commitment exists, a super-majority of Canadians should be required.

There are times when a goverment has to do things the public is against, you would never get a super majority when it comes to sending the troops into harms way. That is one reason why we have goverments ,leave it to the people all the time ,nothing will get done.