Canada orders 1300 smart bombs

[bush_cheney2004]

One could give you the same answer about anything you object to, based on the merits of Power and Will alone.

And well they should, because Power and Will matter....today we call that...."American".

[RNG]

This isn't much of an answer.

One could give you the same answer about anything you object to, based on the merits of Power and Will alone.

The fact that it's a basic truth doesn't matter?

[Guest Derek L]

This isn't much of an answer.

One could give you the same answer about anything you object to, based on the merits of Power and Will alone.

I don't follow, if Canada seized the assets of [insert country's name], I'm certain the people of said country, if the dispute couldn't be solved peacefully, would either favor military action or accepting it.

How is it any different then someone robbing a bank, then the police threatening the thief with force?

[madmax]

But I am not a leader or policymaker...mine is an amoral perspective. Did you know that they kill dogs and cats at animal "shelters"?

You buy your meat products from a shelter?

[bloodyminded]

The fact that it's a basic truth doesn't matter?

I'm not arguing against the truth of it.

Just because there is an inherent human capacity (I'd say it's a weakness) to submissively admire human Power, and consider it its own argument and justification, doesn't mean we have to indulge ourselves in that weakness.

I don't think Saddam was a bad guy based on the fact that he was toppled. And I wouldn't think him a good guy based on the terrific power he once held in his country.

Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I don't follow, if Canada seized the assets of [insert country's name], I'm certain the people of said country, if the dispute couldn't be solved peacefully, would either favor military action or accepting it.

Of course.

But I have no idea how this applies. I get the impression we're talking past one another.

[bloodyminded]

And well they should, because Power and Will matter....today we call that...."American".

Oh, they matter! No doubt about that.

[RNG]

I'm not arguing against the truth of it.

Just because there is an inherent human capacity (I'd say it's a weakness) to submissively admire human Power, and consider it its own argument and justification, doesn't mean we have to indulge ourselves in that weakness.

I don't think Saddam was a bad guy based on the fact that he was toppled. And I wouldn't think him a good guy based on the terrific power he once held in his country.

I agree. But the point was that if some hostile and powerful country decided to come and establish military bases in Canada, we could try and resist but probably couldn't prevent it. That is not saying I agree with them doing it, or that I would welcome Canada doing so to some other, less powerful country. And I think that is all Derek L. was saying.

This of course is all theoretical since the US wouldn't allow it to happen to Canada in the first place. Look at what happened to Cuba.

[Guest Derek L]

Of course.

But I have no idea how this applies. I get the impression we're talking past one another.

I feel it justified to protect Canadian interests abroad, be it pirated Justin Bieber music, kidnapped CBC journalists or production facilities of Canadian oil and gas companies in foreign countries.

[Guest Derek L]

I agree. But the point was that if some hostile and powerful country decided to come and establish military bases in Canada, we could try and resist but probably couldn't prevent it. That is not saying I agree with them doing it, or that I would welcome Canada doing so to some other, less powerful country. And I think that is all Derek L. was saying.

This of course is all theoretical since the US wouldn't allow it to happen to Canada in the first place. Look at what happened to Cuba.

I agree in part. Though I'd prefer disputes settled in the foreign arena, much like they are settled in a democratic country like Canada, be it in courtrooms or boardrooms, I'd not be willing to sacrifice the military option if need be.

[bloodyminded]

I agree. But the point was that if some hostile and powerful country decided to come and establish military bases in Canada, we could try and resist but probably couldn't prevent it. That is not saying I agree with them doing it, or that I would welcome Canada doing so to some other, less powerful country. And I think that is all Derek L. was saying.

This of course is all theoretical since the US wouldn't allow it to happen to Canada in the first place. Look at what happened to Cuba.

Yes, it is theoretical and profoundly unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future.

But as to the analogy...the aggressor building the military base, of which we were speaking, is the United States.

And seriously, I strongly suspect that is the reason the topic took this turn to "nothing we can do about it," rather than the moral denunciation that would undoubtedly accompany someone else doing it.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, it is theoretical and profoundly unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future.

But as to the analogy...the aggressor building the military base, of which we were speaking, is the United States.

And seriously, I strongly suspect that is the reason the topic took this turn to "nothing we can do about it," rather than the moral denunciation that would undoubtedly accompany someone else doing it.

That’s a mater of objectivity.....What if one doesn't see the US as the aggressor?

[GostHacked]

Consequences of what?

Now you are just being obtuse.

So now we are bad guys to not prop them up and even badder to actually help get rid of one of them?

Good attempt at twisting things. Try harder.

You can guess all you want but all we really know is that there were six of them in Benghazi.

Six of them that were carrying guns, forged passports and explosives. And these are just 6 guys that got caught. You can put money on it that there were more SAS squads operating in Libya at that time. If you think that this was the only group, you really need to give your head a shake.

If these were Gaddafi's boys you'd be quick to point them out and call them the bad guy.

[bloodyminded]

That’s a mater of objectivity.....What if one doesn't see the US as the aggressor?

Exactly my point. We're more often taking it for granted that they aren't.

I'm only suggesting there is not enough opening for other narratives on such matters, based on national relationships, and cultural and political similarities. Canada is part of the same (at least more or less) mythical paradigm: as Western allies, essentially we are them and they are us.

And since "we" are good, matters like aggression (the supreme international crime as determined at Nuremberg) or Terrorism are simply not what we do. QED. (I strongly feel this is untrue, but I aim small, and am satisfied even with a civil discussion on it, like this very one.)

The fact of Western nations' comparative excellence domestically, in matters of freedoms, rights and so on, complicates our views of our own foreign actions even further, I believe.

This makes it difficult to approach it another way without someone calling "radical left," derision and dismissal being easier than engagement.

Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest Derek L]

Exactly my point. We're more often taking it for granted that they aren't.

I'm only suggesting there is not enough opening for other narratives on such matters, based on national relationships, and cultural and political similarities. Canada is part of the same (at least more or less) mythical paradigm: as Western allies, essentially we re them and they are us. This makes it difficult to approach it another way without someone calling "radical left," derision and dismissal being easier than engagement.

I think we're on the same wavelength now

So we (as Western Allies) look at intervention in the third world as only being worthy when it’s benefiting/protecting our interests? Is that your argument?

If so, I agree. Where we might be of differing opinions, is in that if this stance is moral.

[bloodyminded]

I think we're on the same wavelength now

So we (as Western Allies) look at intervention in the third world as only being worthy when its benefiting/protecting our interests? Is that your argument?

If so, I agree. Where we might be of differing opinions, is in that if this stance is moral.

Yes, that's my argument.

I would think it unquestionably moral if it were to defend us from an imminent threat; which is why I take issue with "preventive war," as that sounds ripe for abuse and deception. (See Iraq.)

As for protecting our interests, it also matters what exactly those interests are...and whose they are. "National interests" needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. I wouldn't advocate going to war with the US over the softwood issue, even if we were the stronger party. Too disproportionate by far.

So no, i don't see going to war for the theft of a Canadian company to be sufficient grounds for bloodshed and the possibility of extreme chaos.

Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

The fact of Western nations' comparative excellence domestically, in matters of freedoms, rights and so on, complicates our views of our own foreign actions even further, I believe.

Overall great post.

And I am with you there on that. If we are going in for the oil and to establish a base, then just say that. But if that truth was spoken about at the start, you might be hard pressed to get proper support from the people at home.

If we are going in for humanitarian needs, then we should act like humanitarians.

If we are going in as aggressors for the oil and to set up shop, then we should be saying that. So why are we not saying that? Why the need to frame it in a different way than what it really is?

That is what I've always have a problem with when it comes to our governments. Our governments say one thing but do something completely different. Hypocracy. What is really mind boggling is that people don't see the hypocracy in it.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I would think it unquestionably moral if it were to defend us from an imminent threat; which is why I take issue with "preventive war," as that sounds ripe for abuse and deception. (See Iraq.)

But even this is problematic, because the very existence of Canada as a sovereign state violates "moral" considerations. If such sentiments are to be turned on and off at the whim of interests, alliances, or collective "defense", then they can be extinguished for any reason whatsoever...and often are.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, that's my argument.

I would think it unquestionably moral if it were to defend us from an imminent threat; which is why I take issue with "preventive war," as that sounds ripe for abuse and deception. (See Iraq.)

As for protecting our interests, it also matters what exactly those interests are...and whose they are. "National interests" needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. I wouldn't advocate going to war with the US over the softwood issue, even if we were the stronger party. Too disproportionate by far.

So no, i don't see going to war for the theft of a Canadian company to be sufficient grounds for bloodshed and the possibility of extreme chaos.

Fair enough, but if we take the Bush doctrine as an example, it includes direct action that you’re opposed to (Preemption, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy), but also includes indirect action to fight AIDS and poverty in Africa under the auspices of combating extremism.

Isn’t that in all our interests? Does it mater if western companies are making profit selling oil equipment, mosquito nets or AIDS medicine?

[Moonlight Graham]

But I am not a leader or policymaker...mine is an amoral perspective. Did you know that they kill dogs and cats at animal "shelters"?

You are so full of it with your "amoral" nonsense. A person can analyze a situation objectively, but you aren't. When you take a supporting or nonsupporting position on a policy you're judging it as "right" or "wrong", and that's the very definition of "morality".

Your sense of morality is based on self-interest.

[Moonlight Graham]

Exactly. It wasn't about "stealing the oil," but about a permanent base in Iraq, and strategic influence in an energy-rich region.

The war in Iraq was about many factors. Access to oil was certainly one of them, as were the 2 things you mentioned. I'd add long-held neocon US security concern over the Hussein regime, the military-industrial complex, pressure from the US "Jewish lobby" and Israeli govt, etc.

[RNG]

The war in Iraq was about many factors. Access to oil was certainly one of them, as were the 2 things you mentioned. I'd add long-held neocon US security concern over the Hussein regime, the military-industrial complex, pressure from the US "Jewish lobby" and Israeli govt, etc.

I still firmly believe the Iraq invasion was prompted to a significant extent by Shrub's anger at Hussein having commissioned a hit squad or whatever against his old man.

Edited May 19, 2011 by RNG

[Saipan]

I would think it unquestionably moral if it were to defend us from an imminent threat

So we were right not going to Rwanda.

And we were wrong attacking Serbia. Right?

[bush_cheney2004]

You are so full of it with your "amoral" nonsense. A person can analyze a situation objectively, but you aren't. When you take a supporting or nonsupporting position on a policy you're judging it as "right" or "wrong", and that's the very definition of "morality".

No it's not....there is no right or wrong in this context. Support...like talk...is cheap.

Your sense of morality is based on self-interest.

It could be, but usually it is based on nation state interests, and mine is only one of many.

[Moonlight Graham]

So you support another country invading Canada, with one of its primary purposes to set up a permanenet military base?

Do you realize that virtually all military bases and US military presence (minus war zones) in other countries are there because those host countries choose to have them there? If any country, Japan, Taiwan, Germany etc. didn't want US forces/bases there, the US would be forced to remove them, as they did when the Philippines said "take a hike" and the US removed their stationed forces.

It's a mutually beneficial relationship. US gets to dominate more control of the world, the host country gets security. Japan thinks themselves a peaceful, non-nuclear nation, but if the US didn't have her nuclear subs in the area Japan would have to develop their own nukes because of the security threat from China, N.Korea etc.

The whole "US imperialism via military bases" stuff is full of a lot of B.S. If you choose to have a those bases there, that's not really imperialism.