Canada orders 1300 smart bombs

[Tilter]

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.

Anyone who knocks on the Canadian door and asks for refugee status is granted that. SO--- if we can help these people knock off the despots that run their country they won't be refugees and we don't have to grant them status here--- UNLESS-- they are being killed by our bombs in their home country they can still come here & claim that they were endangered there & want to come here :blink:

[Guest Derek L]

I'll go out on a limb, and say Syria will be next:

http://www.suncor.com/en/about/919.aspx

And per Wikileaks:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/01/31/wikileaks-libya-petro-canada.html

The plot thickens

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/20/pol-canada-syria-sanctions-g8.html

The Conservative government is considering imposing sanctions against Syria, an action already taken by other countries and one that will be a top agenda item at next week's G8 meeting.

The new minister of foreign affairs, John Baird, and his department are preparing various options for sanctions against Syria, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman said Friday.

"The minister of foreign affairs is currently working on those options," Dimitri Soudas said at a briefing on Harper's upcoming trip to Deauville, France for the G8 summit.

"We take the situation there very seriously. The actions of the [syrian] government are simply unacceptable," he said.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs promised the government is moving on the file.

"Sanctions are coming," Deepak Obhrai told Evan Solomon on CBC's Power & Politics.

Now only if I could pick lottery numbers......

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/20/pol-canada-syria-sanctions-g8.html

Now only if I could pick lottery numbers......

Someone beat you too it

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18357

Post to the left, initiated that one. But it does look like Syria is going to get something. We are already seeing the start, which we've seen before in Iraq, with Libya following the same path. Sanctions, no fly zones, air strikes, ground troops.

[RNG]

Someone beat you too it

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18357

Post to the left, initiated that one. But it does look like Syria is going to get something. We are already seeing the start, which we've seen before in Iraq, with Libya following the same path. Sanctions, no fly zones, air strikes, ground troops.

The US military-industrial complex wins again. Good for them (in an economic sense.)

[GostHacked]

The US military-industrial complex wins again. Good for them (in an economic sense.)

Indeed, BAE Systems are showing record sales like never before!

[RNG]

Indeed, BAE Systems are showing record sales like never before!

And unlike Bombardier, they can do it without robbing me.

[Guest Derek L]

Someone beat you too it

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18357

Post to the left, initiated that one. But it does look like Syria is going to get something. We are already seeing the start, which we've seen before in Iraq, with Libya following the same path. Sanctions, no fly zones, air strikes, ground troops.

Piss off thunder thief!!

[tinfoil-hat on]You think it’s a coincidence that W.’s book hit the stores about a month (before Christmas) before all the turmoil started in the Middle East, and that he devotes a section of said book to the “freedom agenda”? [tinfoil-hat off/]

[GostHacked]

Piss off thunder thief!!

[tinfoil-hat on]You think it’s a coincidence that W.’s book hit the stores about a month (before Christmas) before all the turmoil started in the Middle East, and that he devotes a section of said book to the “freedom agenda”? [tinfoil-hat off/]

There is even a better book than that. Which fortold this stuff years ago. The book is called 'The Pentagon's New Map' -Thomas Barnett. It's worth reading. I've been pimping this book for some time, but I don't think many have read it.

[Saipan]

Someone beat you too it

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18357

Post to the left, initiated that one. But it does look like Syria is going to get something. We are already seeing the start, which we've seen before in Iraq, with Libya following the same path. Sanctions, no fly zones, air strikes, ground troops.

Which ground troops were in Serbia or Lybia?

[Saipan]

There is even a better book than that. Which fortold this stuff years ago. The book is called 'The Pentagon's New Map' -Thomas Barnett. It's worth reading. I've been pimping this book for some time, but I don't think many have read it.

How about Margaret Atwood?

[bloodyminded]

Fair enough, but if we take the Bush doctrine as an example, it includes direct action that youre opposed to (Preemption, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy)

Just to clarify, i think "pre-emptive war" is deserving of serious debate, whatever one thinks of it. My issue is with "preventive war" misnamed "pre-emptive war." The two are not synonymous, and the conflation is deliberate and cynical, I believe.

,

but also includes indirect action to fight AIDS and poverty in Africa under the auspices of combating extremism.

Yes, but I'm not opposed to this. I'm not denouncing Everything Bush. If anything, I believe his harshest (usually partisan) critics overestimated how bad he was.

Isnt that in all our interests? Does it mater if western companies are making profit selling oil equipment, mosquito nets or AIDS medicine?

Yes. But when we declare (and this declaration is a universal, always asserted, and so carries zero intrinsic information) that we're going to war for the "national interest," I feel quite underwhelmed.

Edited May 24, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

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.

I was talking directly about Iraq. Every situation is not perfectly analogous.

[Moonlight Graham]

I was talking directly about Iraq. Every situation is not perfectly analogous.

No they aren't, but years from now, when the coalition is gone from Iraq (whenever that is), Iraq will be given the choice to ask the U.S. to remove it's bases. It may become a political situation where the US holds the bases over Iraq's head for purpose, thus making it costly in some way (ie: foreign aid, military equipment etc.) to ask thus a thing. However, Iraq would still be free to ask for the bases to be removed. If the US refuses, well, i hear there are some experienced insurgents in the area...

[Guest Derek L]

Just to clarify, i think "pre-emptive war" is deserving of serious debate, whatever one thinks of it. My issue is with "preventive war" misnamed "pre-emptive war." The two are not synonymous, and the conflation is deliberate and cynical, I believe.

That’s a fair point, and I too am not 100% on my feelings on "preventive war" and "pre-emptive war”, and though I can’t say with certainty, I don’t think W. was either prior to 9/11………Some of the Neo-Cons in his cabinet sure, but prior to 9/11, I think Walker Bush was opposed to foreign intervention or nation building.

Yes. But when we declare (and this declaration is a universal, always asserted, and so carries zero intrinsic information) that we're going to war for the "national interest," I feel quite underwhelmed.

That’s your prerogative. From a political point, I oppose much of what Obama is about, but I’m also not so blindly partisan to not give him credit where it’s due, which I feel him increasing the amount of drone attacks into Pakistan and the intervention in Libya

[GostHacked]

No they aren't, but years from now, when the coalition is gone from Iraq (whenever that is), Iraq will be given the choice to ask the U.S. to remove it's bases. It may become a political situation where the US holds the bases over Iraq's head for purpose, thus making it costly in some way (ie: foreign aid, military equipment etc.) to ask thus a thing. However, Iraq would still be free to ask for the bases to be removed. If the US refuses, well, i hear there are some experienced insurgents in the area...

Iraq hosts the USA's largest foreign military base, and it's a whopper. I doubt the USA will be abandoning it anytime soon. They are there for the long haul. Gotta do with some of those 'interests' and the fact that Iraq has a lot of it.

[DogOnPorch]

Iraq hosts the USA's largest foreign military base, and it's a whopper. I doubt the USA will be abandoning it anytime soon. They are there for the long haul. Gotta do with some of those 'interests' and the fact that Iraq has a lot of it.

As Carlos Mencia joked: Leaving?? Dude...the Budweiser arrives next week. You'd better get used to saying 'Super-size that?'.

Edited May 25, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

Iraq hosts the USA's largest foreign military base, and it's a whopper. I doubt the USA will be abandoning it anytime soon. They are there for the long haul. Gotta do with some of those 'interests' and the fact that Iraq has a lot of it.

No, Ramstein is still the largest overseas base, if you're looking for the largest overseas deployment that would be the "Stan"...

Like Germany, Japan or Korea, Iraq can ask the US to leave anytime......

[DogOnPorch]

....and all those $$$$$, too.

[cybercoma]

I find the euphemisms amusing. Can someone please explain how one goes about preventing war by waging war? There's no such thing as a preventive war.

[GostHacked]

I find the euphemisms amusing. Can someone please explain how one goes about preventing war by waging war? There's no such thing as a preventive war.

Anyone else still buying the line of the UN/NATO going in for humanitarian reasons?

I am sure bombing cities is part of humanitarian aid.

I am sure destroying Libya's Navy is part of humanitarian aid.

I am sure sending UK gunships to Libya is part of humanitarian aid.

I am sure blowing up Qadaffi's home and killing members of his familiy is humanitarian aid.

I am sure no fly zones are part of humantiarian aid.

The actions of NATO and the UN are creating a humanitarian crisis. Create the problem to provide the solution.

[bloodyminded]

I find the euphemisms amusing. Can someone please explain how one goes about preventing war by waging war? There's no such thing as a preventive war.

"Preventive" war doesn't mean preventing war; it means preventing an attack upon one's own nation.

It's essentially pre-emptive war, but requiring nothing but a perception of threat..or claims of a perception of threat.

In other words, South Korea has weapons, so we should invade them, lest they someday, far into the future, decide to become aggressors. That's preventive war. The technical term for it is "lunacy."

[cybercoma]

"Preventive" war doesn't mean preventing war; it means preventing an attack upon one's own nation.

It's essentially pre-emptive war, but requiring nothing but a perception of threat..or claims of a perception of threat.

In other words, South Korea has weapons, so we should invade them, lest they someday, far into the future, decide to become aggressors. That's preventive war. The technical term for it is "lunacy."

I see. Well I take your point then and I would like to add, what's the difference between a reason and an excuse?

[bloodyminded]

I see. Well I take your point then and I would like to add, what's the difference between a reason and an excuse?

That's exactly my issue with it. I note that the term isn't used much, maybe becasue too many people consider the concept inherently dangerous.

Edited May 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TTM]

You are a relatively unique debater, and for that I tip my hat.

I would go so far as to say that BC is a master debater. Nearly every post demonstrates his master debating skills - clever comments designed merely to bait one into arguing against an essentially empty philosophy. He plays for his own pleasure only. For that, a tip of my hat and a wag of my finger.

[Hi BC. Feel the love ... and feel the heat! ]

[Saipan]

In other words, South Korea has weapons, so we should invade them

What kind of weapons?

Do they have democratic elections?

Did they invade another country like say Tibet, and annex it?