Moonlight Graham Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 I'm some many saw this yesterday: Harper pays tribute to 'great military success' in Libya from cbc's article on it: The prime minister said the mission was undertaken for a noble purpose, to help protect Libyans who were uprising against Gadhafi and asking for freedom."And, why would they do otherwise, having experienced over four decades of dictatorship so brutal and psychotic, that it had literally taken their country out of the mainstream of human existence?" Harper said. The prime minister said Gadhafi's harsh and violent response to the uprising was "an invitation to genocide" and that is why Canada joined its NATO allies to support the United Nations-backed response. He said Canada will always defend what is right. "For we believe that in a world where people look for hope and cry out for freedom, those who talk the talk of human rights must from time to time be prepared to likewise walk the walk," said Harper. A 21-gun salute and a flypast over Parliament Hill kicked off the morning's event before it began in the Senate chamber. It's one thing to honour soldiers, which is fine. It's quite another thing to celebrate a military "victory" (might want to wait 10 years to declare victory, but that's another story) while having the audacity to outright lie (repeatedly) to Canadians about why we went in there. Defending human rights and democracy and preventing "genocide" was not even close to the primary reason Canada, nor just about every NATO country for that matter, went in there. It was about oil and regional power interests and people not brainwashed by this propaganda know this. Look at NATO just rushing into places like Syria, or Rwanda, Darfur, and the DRC for that matter. Are these lies of reasons of going to war much different than what Bush & co. did with Iraq? Should our government not be honest with Canadians as to why we go to war? The Harper gov also used its favorite military props for the celebration, having some jets do a flyover on Parliament Hill. I personally attended the Remembrance Day ceremonies on the Hill a couple of weeks ago and that too featured a flyover of jets and helicopters (& 21-gun salute). I guess the Harper gov got a kick out it, like a kid playing with his favorite toys. These things are not toys for 50 y/o kids to gawk over, they are killing machines used to kill other humans that unfortunately we must sometimes use to defend our country. I personally think yesterday was quite scary and ridiculous. A clear show of government political and military propaganda. I also think the Harper gov should be called to task for their war lies, put in front of a committee or something at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Yes it was about Libya but its was more about Harper and his wife! To stand there and let the whole world see them standing there. Most Canadians didn't even know it was happening, including those living on Ottawa. Taxpayers bill will about $500.000.00 for those planes to fly over. Why I include the Mrs. is Harper said she was his biggest advisor and she was/is a Reformer, which how she met Harper. All Canadians will stand by their military, but they won't stand by a PM who uses them for THEIR own purposes! The Libya war was more about economies and oil by the five nations who went in there. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25255 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Actually I'm glad Harper is showing his true colores and sharing what his image of Canada is! Much like the graphic pictures on cigarettes. Enjoy WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25255 Read that article before, great link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Harper needs to retract his statement about genocide. There is a very specific definition for genocide according to the UN and what Ghaddafi was heading towards was not it. Indeed, he's was moving towards mass murder, the ends of which are similar. Genocide, though, has specific ramifications in international court. What happened in Libya does not meet that criteria. Moreover, calling this a "noble" crusade is a joke. We know nothing about the people that have taken control of this country. Ghaddafi may have needed to go, but Harper knows nothing about the people that we've supported in this endeavour. They could be just as tyrannical, just as brutal for all we know. It's too soon to tell. We ought to demand more from our leaders than this kind of hollow grand-standing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 I don't buy that Canada was there because of oil. We were there because we're trying to get noticed. It wasn't noble, probably not, but in Canada's case it wasn't really about oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Oh, and I don't really see the big deal with the ceremony. Similar ceremonies have happened before, and will happen again (even if they weren't exactly the same in the past). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 It doesn't look good. Celebrating a military victory over Ghaddafi? That's like a high school senior celebrating because he was holding a 7 year old, so his 5 year old brother could beat the kid up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 It doesn't look good. Celebrating a military victory over Ghaddafi? That's like a high school senior celebrating because he was holding a 7 year old, so his 5 year old brother could beat the kid up. Was the word victory really used in the description of the event? It was about the mission and the people who took part of it, from what I understand. It was also to honour a General who was on his way out, and was given a big job as his last gig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 I don't buy that Canada was there because of oil. We were there because we're trying to get noticed. It wasn't noble, probably not, but in Canada's case it wasn't really about oil. Are yoiu serious? Libya is the largest supplier of oil to Italy.Ever hear about the European economic crisis going on right now? You ever heard of the phrase "putting one and one together"? This was the most obvious economic based war possibly in the history of mankind. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Are yoiu serious? Libya is the largest supplier of oil to Italy.Ever hear about the European economic crisis going on right now? No one knew in March that things were going to be this bad...but I maintain that it's unlikely that Canada's role in Libya (I'm not talking about the UK and France) had little if anything to do with oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 No one knew in March that things were going to be this bad...but I maintain that it's unlikely that Canada's role in Libya (I'm not talking about the UK and France) had little if anything to do with oil. Really? If that was the case then every single war that Canada has bein involved in since BNA would have bein for humanitarian reasons. And that sounds freekin stupid and unrealistic so lets just forget I even mentioned or you suggested it. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 No one knew in March that things were going to be this bad...but I maintain that it's unlikely that Canada's role in Libya (I'm not talking about the UK and France) had little if anything to do with oil. Yea...it's just a coincidence that your prime minister paid a personal visit to Gadaffy in an effort to secure oil contracts for Canadian firms, the same firms that had to evacuate employees when the shootin' started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) The Con point of view is if there is a war Canada should be there with its allies no matter who it is against Edited November 26, 2011 by olp1fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Libya is the largest supplier of oil to Italy.Ever hear about the European economic crisis going on right now? WWWTT So Canada went in to ensure ITALY'S supply of oil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 The Con point of view is if there is a war Canada should be there with its allies no matter who it is against But yet.....The Liberals and NDP supported the "war" in Libya also........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 But yet.....The Liberals and NDP supported the "war" in Libya also........ They did at first but the NDP changed their mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 They did at first but the NDP changed their mind Really? When? After the election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) Really? When? After the election? http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2011/06/20110613-181028.html http://m.ctv.ca/topstories/20110926/libya-extension-vote-debate-110926.html ^ndp voting against the bill Edited November 26, 2011 by olp1fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2011/06/20110613-181028.html http://m.ctv.ca/topstories/20110926/libya-extension-vote-debate-110926.html ^ndp voting against the bill NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said the NDP have offered an amendment to the bill to shift the mission from a military operation to one focused on rebuilding the country. How do you rebuild a country, well a civil war is being fought, without the military? That’s just foolish……… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 How do you rebuild a country, well a civil war is being fought, without the military? That’s just foolish……… no one said the ndp had were smart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 I don't buy that Canada was there because of oil. We were there because we're trying to get noticed. It wasn't noble, probably not, but in Canada's case it wasn't really about oil. I think it was both in Canada's case, but ya getting noticed was a key part of it for sure. For NATO, it certainly was about oil and regional interests. Harper is an odd duck for trying to get Canada noticed with military power, yet completely lampoons our bid to get on the UN security council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Harper needs to retract his statement about genocide. There is a very specific definition for genocide according to the UN and what Ghaddafi was heading towards was not it. Indeed, he's was moving towards mass murder, the ends of which are similar. Genocide, though, has specific ramifications in international court. What happened in Libya does not meet that criteria. great point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 It bothers me that politicians cheapen the meaning of genocide by labelling any sort of set of political murders as genocide or potential genocide. It's like these people never read the boy who cried wolf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.