Canadian army under UN rule

[bloodyminded]

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.

Even if that's true--and I don't think it's a given--that would remain Canada's fault, not America's. And do you doubt that the Conservatives would have gone into Afghanistan, had it been their government?

Now I should say not all liberals (from the WW days or korea) just in the more modern times.

What about Kosovo?

And when they did , you end up with the mess in somolia.

I don't see how that issue had anything to do with whether Liberals or Conservatives were in power.

Edited April 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[PIK]

Even if that's true--and I don't think it's a given--that would remain Canada's fault, not America's. And do you doubt that the Conservatives would have gone into Afghanistan, had it been their government?

What about Kosovo?

I don't see how that issue had anything to do with whether Liberals or Conservatives were in power.

My mistake for forgetting kosovo, but then look at the medac pocket where the libs were afraid to even admit that our soldiers kicked ass, not a word for over 10 years, and really never got any recognition until the past few years. Why were they so ashamed of the good work they did.

[bloodyminded]

My mistake for forgetting kosovo, but then look at the medac pocket where the libs were afraid to even admit that our soldiers kicked ass, not a word for over 10 years, and really never got any recognition until the past few years. Why were they so ashamed of the good work they did.

I get the feeling that you're shifting goalposts around here.

[WIP]

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

But it was okay for arms sales to Libya after he got on the good side of George Bush.

[WIP]

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.

If countries like Libya want to build something like a Canadian system, it should be up to them to do it; not for us to be part of engineering regime change for whatever purposes. The regime change supporters need to explain why we should be mobilizing about what Gaddaffi is doing to his people, while avoiding mention of what's going on in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, or even what's happening in Egypt now since the military has taken control. Why is it just places that happen to be floating on oil, where there is so much concern about human rights?

[WIP]

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).

People don't always have a lot of choice about their political systems...especially when they are autocratic dictatorships supported by foreign governments and corporate interests. And, I don't accept whatever it is you are intending with "cultural superiority". It is a step down the road towards permanent war...of the kind you are likely familiar with where you are living now! If you have nothing but contempt for the people who are living around you, there is no hope of reaching any sort of peaceful settlement.

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.

One question: would Saudi Arabia even exist in its present form without having the U.S. as its benefactor? It's been a simple arrangement since the 1930's...the U.S. supplies protection, first from the Soviet Union, and then from nearby threats in Iraq and Iran, billions in military hardware to use against their own people, and they supply cheap oil.

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.

In many of these countries, the growth of Islamists movements coincided with U.S. encroachment...mostly connected with oil politics by supporting crony dictatorships and building naval bases to control the shipping lanes. My point is that it is that real democracy is not imposed from outside, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should be up to them to decide how they want to live and be governed, and the less interference from the outside would do more to improve the chances of equality and democracy movements in the Middle East.

Lastly, I love your implicit justification of terrorism.

Whether you feel its justified or not, I expect terrorism to keep coming as a response to aerial warfare conducted by remotely operated aircraft. We are entering an age of "terminator" warfare with an assortment of drone aircraft that can be used for a variety of military operations. Airplanes with no pilots, increase the likelihood of their use...as we are seeing under the Obama Administration, and it's just to easy and too risk-free to engage in this new kind of warfare. The only repercussions are likely to come in the form of terrorism.

[M.Dancer]

But it was okay for arms sales to Libya after he got on the good side of George Bush.

Are you suggesting that the US sold weapons to Libya?

[bush_cheney2004]

....One question: would Saudi Arabia even exist in its present form without having the U.S. as its benefactor? It's been a simple arrangement since the 1930's...the U.S. supplies protection, first from the Soviet Union, and then from nearby threats in Iraq and Iran, billions in military hardware to use against their own people, and they supply cheap oil.

Gee....that sounds like Canada today! But the Saudis have much sweeter oil.

[Bonam]

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.

Just as important, if not an even more important, measure of the "morality" of a country is how it treats its own people, what freedoms they have, what rights they have. I don't think you'll find 100 countries that beat out Canada in this regard.

[M.Dancer]

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....

cite

[WIP]

Are you suggesting that the US sold weapons to Libya?

No...they are:

NEW YORK -- A broad coalition of interests from oil companies, defense manufacturers and well-connected lobbying firms to neoconservative scholars and Harvard Business School professors has worked in recent years to advance a rapprochement with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and take advantage of business opportunities in the country, even in the face of the longtime international pariah's brutal repression of his people and his legendary belligerence.

Yet Libya's opposition leaders say that such efforts have harmed the interests of the North African country by helping enrich Gaddafi's family and close allies at the expense of the majority of Libyans, serving only to prolong Gaddafi's brutal reign. They also blame U.S. policy for prioritizing national security interests over issues of reform and human rights, the lack of which helped fuel the country's ongoing violent upheaval.

Soon after U.S. President George W. Bush dropped sanctions against Libya in 2004, when Gaddafi announced that he intended to give up weapons of mass destruction and expressed his eagerness to join the war on terror, U.S. and British oil producers and business interests jumped at the chance to expand into the country, which has been ruled with an iron fist by the unstable leader for some 40 years.

Some of the biggest oil producers and servicers, including BP, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, Chevron, Conoco and Marathon Oil joined with defense giants like Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, multinationals like Dow Chemical and Fluor and the high-powered law firm White & Case to form the US-Libya Business Association in 2005. The members of its executive advisory council each pay $20,000 in annual dues to the group, which is managed by the National Foreign Trade Council, a coalition that seeks to facilitate international opportunities for U.S. companies. Most of the group's members have lobbied the U.S. government since 2004 to protect their investments in Libya or to iron out business problems with the regime.

The role of the USLBA, which calls itself the only U.S. trade association focusing solely on the United States and Libya, combines lobbying for the former outlaw state with advancing the commercial aims of the association's member groups. The nonprofit has sponsored policy conferences, briefing sessions and events featuring senior U.S. and Libyan officials.

http://www.tfdnews.com/news/2011/02/24/82547-libyas-opposition-leaders-slam-us-business-lobbys-deals-gaddafi.htm

[M.Dancer]

No...they are:

http://www.tfdnews.com/news/2011/02/24/82547-libyas-opposition-leaders-slam-us-business-lobbys-deals-gaddafi.htm

You just posted a link that says nothing about the US selling weapons...