Canadian army under UN rule

[PIK]

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?

So in your world ,what the US does we do the opposite. So really it does not matter to you ,as long as we stick it to the americans.Ghaddafi is a idiot and when he says he will have a river of blood, no mercy for anyone, and I will go door to door to find them and kill them, then you have to move fast, IMO we sayed alot of lives ,where in your world we would be looking at another slaughter and you would be the 1st person on this board saying harper let them down and has blood on his hands. Look at rwanda, and what a mess it became, and one reason for it,was the general we sent there.

[Bob]

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.

I still don't understand why you can't reconcile yourself to the fact that Canada, the USA, and a handful of other countries, while not morally pure, are in a completely different moral category than nations such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, or the majority of the world's states (and peoples). This is true by any moral barometer.

Other than that, I agree with your post - especially the idea that military actions sanctioned by the UN are inherently legitimate (or are more legitimate) while non-UN-sanctioned military actions aren't legitimate (or are less legitimate). I don't give a damn what irrelevant nations and/or their governments proclaim.

It's sad that Ignatieff seems not to recognize this, or to think that Canadians haven't considered these issues carefully and that he can win votes through towing the internationalist rhetoric (much like Obama, by the way). This directly ties in to Ignatieff (and I think Layton is also guilty of this) denigrating Canada's reputation in front of Canadians by making ridiculous statements such as Canada needing to "regain its position" in the world. As if Canada doesn't enjoy a strong reputation worldwide, and as if that reputation matters anyways. Are Canadian leaders to compromise Canadian interests because someone in Scandinavia or Iraq might hold an opposing view? He was just taking a line out of the Democratic/Obama playbook which suggested that Obama would make America more "respected" in the world after the Bush years, when America was especially trashed by much of the anti-American press around the world. Excuse me, Mr. Ignatieff, you're running for leadership in Canada, not to win a popularity contest around the world. If you're unable to stand up for Canadian interests when they invariably come into conflict with the interests/opinions of others around the world, perhaps you're not meant to be Prime Minister.

[scouterjim]

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.

Make that the Trudeau Era. He hated the military with a passion, and it was under him that it degraded so much.

[Bob]

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.

For sure. I'm certainly not going to trust the likes of Anderson Cooper et al. I am certain that the political situation in Libya, like almost everywhere else, is exceedingly complicated. Five-minute sound bytes from "on-the-scene" Anderson Cooper certainly doesn't make me feel enlightened about what's really going on over there. Maybe the "rebels" are in-line with our values, and maybe they're not. I sincerely believe that even our best sources, to whom only our leadership have access (intelligence reports, etc), are also clueless about what's really going on. I don't think for a second that Obama or Harper or Clegg have strong intelligence on what's going on, either. I remember reading several books which convinced me that intelligence services in the West are light-years behind contemporary problems - for example, barely having any field offers that are able to work in the Middle East. The intelligence organizations are filled with John Doughs and not Muhammad Bin-Al Shibs, if you catch my drift.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

I still don't understand why you can't reconcile yourself to the fact that Canada, the USA, and a handful of other countries, while not morally pure, are in a completely different moral category than nations such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, or the majority of the world's states (and peoples). This is true by any moral barometer.

Unless one's moral barometer depends on looking at actual behaviour. Then then hypothesis becomes troubled by facts on the ground.

I'm not talking about the domestic sphere, in which I have no compunction at all about declaring the superiority of a relatively small number of countries to the majority. Hell, my entire political worldview, rightly or wrongly, is predicated essentially on the Enlightenment ideals which have become part of the conversation about the contemporary Western state.

I'm talking about foreign policy, which after all is really the subject here.

Other than that, I agree with your post - especially the idea that military actions sanctioned by the UN are inherently legitimate (or are more legitimate) while non-UN-sanctioned military actions aren't legitimate (or are less legitimate). I don't give a damn what irrelevant nations and/or their governments proclaim.

Yes. Why should this be considered so obviously true?

It's sad that Ignatieff seems not to recognize this, or to think that Canadians haven't considered these issues carefully and that he can win votes through towing the internationalist rhetoric (much like Obama, by the way). This directly ties in to Ignatieff (and I think Layton is also guilty of this) denigrating Canada's reputation in front of Canadians by making ridiculous statements such as Canada needing to "regain its position" in the world. As if Canada doesn't enjoy a strong reputation worldwide, and as if that reputation matters anyways. Are Canadian leaders to compromise Canadian interests because someone in Scandinavia or Iraq might hold an opposing view? He was just taking a line out of the Democratic/Obama playbook which suggested that Obama would make America more "respected" in the world after the Bush years, when America was especially trashed by much of the anti-American press around the world. Excuse me, Mr. Ignatieff, you're running for leadership in Canada, not to win a popularity contest around the world. If you're unable to stand up for Canadian interests when they invariably come into conflict with the interests/opinions of others around the world, perhaps you're not meant to be Prime Minister.

I sympathize with all this, but I don't quite understand the implied distinction to Harper. He might not engage in the usual rhetoric, but his actions, as we speak, provide evidence of his adherence to the so-called "internationalist" framework of military action.

I don't see how he and Ignatieff are especially distinct.

Edited April 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Unless one's moral barometer depends on looking at actual behaviour. Then then hypothesis becomes troubled by facts on the ground.

I disagree. And I don't want to get into it.

Yes. Why should this be considered so obviously true?

It's considered true because of a simplistic and absolutist belief in majority will ("democracy"). It's particularly aggravating for me to hear it with respect to Israel - constant attacks about the "international community" condemning Israel for this or for that. 99.9% of the time, those critics aren't sure what they're opposing or why, but have a faith in the UN and other "international" institutions, so they go along with the criticisms. Let's get down to the nitty gritty to analyze something, and not take a position simply because it's popular.

I sympathize with all this, but I don't quite understand the implied distinction to Harper. He might not engage in the usual rhetoric, but his actions, as we speak, provide evidence of his adherence to the so-called "internationalist" framework of military action.

I still don't think Harper will defer as much as Ignatieff would. And yes, I realize how Harper's recent actions illustrate the very thing I can't stand about Ignatieff. You're certainly right, however, Harper did defer to the UN with respect to Libya, albeit in a relatively limited way. It was still wrong of him to do so, though.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Bob

[M.Dancer]

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?

What do those interests have to do with your statement?...nothing has changed since our attacks on FRY or Haiti...so your statement stands in error.

[M.Dancer]

How about if we have a Canadian Armed Forces that sticks to its principle mandate of defending our shores and borders?

Since when has that been its principal mandate?

[PIK]

Since when has that been its principal mandate?

People just do not understand the history of this country, but then they don't teach it in schools. But look at the history of our army, going overseas since the boar war.

[bloodyminded]

I disagree.

I know.

And I don't want to get into it.

Me either.

It's considered true because of a simplistic and absolutist belief in majority will ("democracy").

Maybe you're right. And if that's the premise, then it should deal with its contradictions even by its own standards: that it has nothing to do with democratic principles as we understand them, but rather with the will of political leaderships (many not even democratic ones), and is based on power plays, strategy, resource allocaiton, doing favours, and any number of international matters.

And that's a critique, again, by the standards of accepting the premise (which you rightfully question)...which I don't.

I still don't think Harper will defer as much as Ignatieff does. You're certainly right, however, Harper did defer to the UN with respect to Libya, albeit in a relatively limited way. It was still wrong of him to do so, though.

Fair enough. We can't know for certain at this time, but we can speculate honestly enough.

[M.Dancer]

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),....

I think if you read the NATO charter...the USSR is not even mentioned...so no...

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

[wyly]

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.

1st libya has not been invaded...2nd neither NATO or the UN can force canada or any other country to take part in any military action it does not wish to...

[Evening Star]

Make that the Trudeau Era. He hated the military with a passion, and it was under him that it degraded so much.

Different perspective here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/08/cv-election-vp-smol.html

[PIK]

Different perspective here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/08/cv-election-vp-smol.html

Talk to guys that served in that time and they will tell you different as in the equipment the soldier had. The clothing, the boots ,the trucks ,the weapons and hardly any ammo. Trudeau made some big purchases to make it look like he was doing something ,but over all the army suffered dearly.

[bloodyminded]

Talk to guys that served in that time and they will tell you different as in the equipment the soldier had. The clothing, the boots ,the trucks ,the weapons and hardly any ammo. Trudeau made some big purchases to make it look like he was doing something ,but over all the army suffered dearly.

Do you have any stats about the percentage of military Liberal voters in the Trudeau era?

[WIP]

I still don't understand why you can't reconcile yourself to the fact that Canada, the USA, and a handful of other countries, while not morally pure, are in a completely different moral category than nations such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, or the majority of the world's states (and peoples). This is true by any moral barometer.

As long as there are people like you, who believe that some people (us) are morally superior to other people (them), there will always be wars! Are we morally superior to the Arab World because we are part of a collective that has installed puppet governments in Arab nations for the purpose of plundering their oil and any other natural resources? Or, are the Arabs morally inferior because some of them respond to colossal military power with asymmetrical warfare...terrorism?

Easy to feel superior, when you're feeling comfortable, but the hard times that we are just approaching are making me consider that some of the militia crackpots to my south are going to our greatest threat of terrorism in the near future...judging from their rhetoric, the accumulation of arms, and the small scale terrorist attacks they've carried out so far. The next 20 ro 30 years could get very interesting.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Easy to feel superior, when you're feeling comfortable, but the hard times that we are just approaching are making me consider that some of the militia crackpots to my south are going to our greatest threat of terrorism in the near future...judging from their rhetoric, the accumulation of arms, and the small scale terrorist attacks they've carried out so far. The next 20 ro 30 years could get very interesting.

Not nearly as interesting as those "militia crackpots" to your south about 240 years ago.

Why should it be any different now?

[WIP]

So in your world ,what the US does we do the opposite. So really it does not matter to you ,as long as we stick it to the americans.Ghaddafi is a idiot and when he says he will have a river of blood, no mercy for anyone, and I will go door to door to find them and kill them, then you have to move fast, IMO we sayed alot of lives ,where in your world we would be looking at another slaughter and you would be the 1st person on this board saying harper let them down and has blood on his hands. Look at rwanda, and what a mess it became, and one reason for it,was the general we sent there.

It would have been smarter to maintain the more independent path in international affairs we had under Chretien.....never thought I'd be missing him, but he looks like genius after five years of Harper! It might at least be savvy and opportunistic to become the new White House lap dog if America was where it was 10 or 20 years ago; but now the mounting debt and military over-reach provides conclusive proof that the U.S. is a dying empire...and unfortunately not one like England, which quietly let go of its empire. If we have any influence in Washington, it should be telling them to back off, rather than waving pompoms and encouraging full speed ahead.

And about Libya...the U.S. cut a deal with Gadaffi, and started supplying them with arms...many of which are now being used to bomb their own people....so just because the Obama Administration misjudged the strength of the Gadaffi Regime and has now found itself mired in a third war, that is the stupidest reason yet for joining in the fun and games.

[dre]

I still don't understand why you can't reconcile yourself to the fact that Canada, the USA, and a handful of other countries, while not morally pure, are in a completely different moral category than nations such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, or the majority of the world's states (and peoples). This is true by any moral barometer.

Im not so sure about that. If you take a look at the 200+ countries in the world there are probably at least 100 who have behaved much better than we have on an international scale. Dozens and dozens of responsible actors that have lived in peace with their neighbors, not started shit, and not killed hundreds of thousands of people to aquire resources, and not instigated conflict.

Its telling that would lump the "majority of the worlds states" into the same category as Saudi Arabia.

[bush_cheney2004]

...And about Libya...the U.S. cut a deal with Gadaffi, and started supplying them with arms...many of which are now being used to bomb their own people....so just because the Obama Administration misjudged the strength of the Gadaffi Regime and has now found itself mired in a third war, that is the stupidest reason yet for joining in the fun and games.

Canada and PM Martin cozied up to Uncle Moe for sweet oil services contracts....is that what you mean by "independent course"?

[PIK]

It would have been smarter to maintain the more independent path in international affairs we had under Chretien.....never thought I'd be missing him, but he looks like genius after five years of Harper! It might at least be savvy and opportunistic to become the new White House lap dog if America was where it was 10 or 20 years ago; but now the mounting debt and military over-reach provides conclusive proof that the U.S. is a dying empire...and unfortunately not one like England, which quietly let go of its empire. If we have any influence in Washington, it should be telling them to back off, rather than waving pompoms and encouraging full speed ahead.

And about Libya...the U.S. cut a deal with Gadaffi, and started supplying them with arms...many of which are now being used to bomb their own people....so just because the Obama Administration misjudged the strength of the Gadaffi Regime and has now found itself mired in a third war, that is the stupidest reason yet for joining in the fun and games.

You can't have a foriegn policy by sitting on the fence all the time. Libs talk all the time to get back into peace keeping in other words ,go some where we won't offend anyone and won't have to do anything. So you don't think other people in other countries should not be given the chance to build a country like canada and live free and have a chance at a stable life like we have. Or do you perfer we let them carry on and let their best and brightest come here, all that does is take away any chance for those countries to grow and become a better place to live for it's people. Really IMO our immigration policies have done exactly as I said, Steal all the good,leave behind the bad, so they will never stand a chance of becoming great.

[bloodyminded]

You can't have a foriegn policy by sitting on the fence all the time. Libs talk all the time to get back into peace keeping in other words ,go some where we won't offend anyone and won't have to do anything.

????

Are you suggesting that the Conservatives have kept getting involved in wars, where the Liberals have avoided them?

Because this is flatly untrue.

[Bob]

As long as there are people like you, who believe that some people (us) are morally superior to other people (them), there will always be wars! Are we morally superior to the Arab World because we are part of a collective that has installed puppet governments in Arab nations for the purpose of plundering their oil and any other natural resources? Or, are the Arabs morally inferior because some of them respond to colossal military power with asymmetrical warfare...terrorism?

Well, I guess we've got you on the record as saying that there isn't a discrepancy between the culture, political system, and of course people between the USA and Saudi Arabia (as examples). This has nothing to do with war, either. It's tiring to have to respond to such absurd statements, but America certainly hasn't installed any "puppet governments" in the Arab/Muslim world. Doing business with these government for the purpose of acquiring the economic lifeblood that we know as oil isn't the same thing as "installing puppet governments". I think this is your cue to show us a photograph of Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein from the 80s shaking hands? Or maybe a photograph of Barack Obama bowing to the Saudi King Abdullah? People like you always think that as soon as America has ANY sort of relationship with an Arab or Muslim country, that they are controlling the dictatorship. As far as your comment of "plundering resources", this is again another frustrating lie to respond to that we hear all the time. IN your world, when America buys anything, it's "plundering".

Not let's actually get to the point I made, which seems to require more explanation despite how obvious I thought it was. Look at the treatment of minorities. Look at the role of women. Look at the respect/tolerance for political differences. Look at the levels of freedoms and liberties. Before you tell me that the Middle East would resemble America and Canada is only it weren't for what you describe as American-installed/American-backed puppet dictatorships, go take a look at public opinion polls asking question regarding issues I've just mentioned. Stop being so naive to think that all around the world, in the heart of every oppressed citizen around the world is a sensible Canadian longing to be free. These people, largely, are not like you or I.

And again, this has nothing to do with was. Them being moral backwards and primitive doesn't mean I want to go to war with them. On the other hand, I'd rather have as little to do with them, generally speaking, as possible.

Lastly, I love your implicit justification of terrorism.

Easy to feel superior, when you're feeling comfortable, but the hard times that we are just approaching are making me consider that some of the militia crackpots to my south are going to our greatest threat of terrorism in the near future...judging from their rhetoric, the accumulation of arms, and the small scale terrorist attacks they've carried out so far. The next 20 ro 30 years could get very interesting.

I'm not sure if I should ever waste any more of my time responding to you again. You're actually trying to suggest that those militias that the mainstream American media reported on a couple of years for a week or two, when it was the cool thing to report on, are comparable to the perpetrators of 9/11? Unbelievable stupidity...

[Bob]

Im not so sure about that. If you take a look at the 200+ countries in the world there are probably at least 100 who have behaved much better than we have on an international scale. Dozens and dozens of responsible actors that have lived in peace with their neighbors, not started shit, and not killed hundreds of thousands of people to aquire resources, and not instigated conflict.

Its telling that would lump the "majority of the worlds states" into the same category as Saudi Arabia.

You mean the majority of countries that have no ability to stand up for their interests and therefore can't be compared to the handful of countries that can? With respect to the majority of the countries around the world, they can be lumped into the same category as Saudi Arabia in the sense that their cultures and/or political systems are inferior to ours. There is no shame in acknowledging superiority where it exists. When Harper said that Canada is the best country in the world to live in during the debate, did you find that an arrogant or offensive statement? I found it to be the best statement of the entire debate, quite frankly.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Bob

[PIK]

????

Are you suggesting that the Conservatives have kept getting involved in wars, where the Liberals have avoided them?

Because this is flatly untrue.

No, just the libs always sit on the fence, and before you bring up afghanistan,(where he sent in our boys and girls with hardly any equipment)he only did to keep america happy. Now I should say not all liberals (from the WW days or korea) just in the more modern times. And when they did , you end up with the mess in somolia. I wonder back when mackenzie was holding on to the Sarajevo airport and requested larger weapons for the tanks coming his way ,but under UN rules he was not allowed, so muldoon sent in a plane load of weapons on his own ,behind the UN back, I wonder if chretien would have the balls to do something like that.