CANADIEN Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 This would work well if done by a country whose people prided themselves on their brutality, or maybe where they had no say in the affairs of their military, or no knowledge of what they did. Replace the words Taliban with `western military`, Afghanistan with New York city, and `women and children`with `WTC workers`, and what we have is no different than What Al-Queda has advocated, and done. There are a few words that describe properly those who advocate the deliberate killing of non-combattants. Even the mildest of those words would be against forum rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 NO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 He also provided concrete evidence that we are better than they are, which is often refuted by too many. In fact, it's been said that "the American military is an utter disgrace to humanity." Fact is, we won't do all that could be done to win this war - not by a long shot. What makes us better than the taliban and Al-Quada is those things like not murdering innocent people, which is what a certain individual here is openly proposing. Because the conduct of the vast majority of Amercian or Canadian soldiers is honourable and what to be expected of soldiers in times of war, those who claim they as a whole or a group are a disgrace to humanity don't know what they are talking about. Yet, there are soldiers who have disgraced themselves, their uniform and their country by their actions. One person here is suggesting that this type of conduct becomes the way our militaries as a whole conduct war. I'm curious: do you agree with that person, yes or no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 The inevitable and final result of war without restraint is total barbarism. We become the thing which we fight against. Then the enemy is in us. This can never be completely avoided to an extent in any war, and the more violent a war becomes, the more savage the psyche of the people. Not just the soldiers, but the citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 The inevitable and final result of war without restraint is total barbarism. We become the thing which we fight against. Then the enemy is in us. This can never be completely avoided to an extent in any war, and the more violent a war becomes, the more savage the psyche of the people. Not just the soldiers, but the citizens. Good post, Manny. IMO, we already inhabit a savage psyche. If our country were not savage, surely we would have had more of an outcry against a Canadian presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or membership in NATO, or our support of extraordinary rendition, and torture in general. The fact that most Canadians allow these things to take place on their alleged watch is evidence to our savagery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Good post, Manny. IMO, we already inhabit a savage psyche. If our country were not savage, surely we would have had more of an outcry against a Canadian presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or membership in NATO, or our support of extraordinary rendition, and torture in general. The fact that most Canadians allow these things to take place on their alleged watch is evidence to our savagery. Yes Manny, good post. However greyman, war is or can be justified by events. Like freedom comes without a price? What? We should have thrown moral entreaties at the Nazis? Sure that would work. There have to be occasions where war is justified. Avoided if reasonable, but not at all cost. There was just cause to invade (NATO UN) Afghanistan to take out the al-Qaeda terrorist training camps a choice that the Taliban refused to comply with. That it continued can hardly be justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I think our C$ and the military lives are worth MORE than sending them into another useless war. So until the MP's who send our soldiers in, send their own kids in, then I'm against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Yes Manny, good post. However greyman, war is or can be justified by events. Like freedom comes without a price? What? We should have thrown moral entreaties at the Nazis? Sure that would work. There have to be occasions where war is justified. Avoided if reasonable, but not at all cost. There was just cause to invade (NATO UN) Afghanistan to take out the al-Qaeda terrorist training camps a choice that the Taliban refused to comply with. That it continued can hardly be justified. War is a last resort, and always should be. The political realities at the time meant we essentially had been attacked by Nazi Germany, so it made sense to war with them. In Afghanistan, we went because of our treaty obligations, an alliance I don't believe Canada should belong to, nor should we have gone to Afghanistan in the first place. The U.S. went into Afghanistan looking for revenge, and that is not justification for war. The whole thing about "training camps" etc, sounded like propaganda to me. It would be different if the Afghan government had waged war on the US, and attacked the US homeland, i.e. hijacked the planes that hit the WTC. But as far as the public was told, that is not what happened. As far as we know, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were predominantly Saudi. And apparently the planners of the attacks were in Afghanistan. The point is, the facts surrounding the entire affair remain unclear to this day, and muddied waters are hardly good justification for engaging in all-out war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 There was just cause to invade (NATO UN) Afghanistan to take out the al-Qaeda terrorist training camps a choice that the Taliban refused to comply with. That it continued can hardly be justified. It can be argued and demonstrated that the Taliban WERE willing to comply and allow the search of Osama bin Laden to take place in their country. At first they refused but when it became clear that the US was willing to stage an invasion, they desperately agreed. But George Bush said it was too late, he wasn't going to stop the plans that were already taking place. War should be the last resort, among honourable men but there was no real attempt at preventing the war. There was in fact a rush to war. I remember, I have a memory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AusKanada Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Hard to be against an invasion that crushed the Taliban and installed a democracy in Afghanistan... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 War is a last resort, and always should be. The political realities at the time meant we essentially had been attacked by Nazi Germany, so it made sense to war with them. Not true...Canada had not been attacked by Germany. The U.K and France declared war on Germany in response to the invasion of Poland. In Afghanistan, we went because of our treaty obligations, an alliance I don't believe Canada should belong to, nor should we have gone to Afghanistan in the first place. Canada is a founding member of the NATO Charter. The U.S. went into Afghanistan looking for revenge, and that is not justification for war. The U.S. can justify war any way it wants, just like Canada did during Korea, Gulf War, Balkans, Kosovo, and Libya. The whole thing about "training camps" etc, sounded like propaganda to me. It would be different if the Afghan government had waged war on the US, and attacked the US homeland, i.e. hijacked the planes that hit the WTC. But as far as the public was told, that is not what happened. Such logic didn't help Poncho Villa either, who "attacked" US nationals from Mexico. As far as we know, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were predominantly Saudi. And apparently the planners of the attacks were in Afghanistan. The point is, the facts surrounding the entire affair remain unclear to this day, and muddied waters are hardly good justification for engaging in all-out war. It wasn't an "all-out" war, otherwise a lot more Afghans would be dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Hard to be against an invasion that crushed the Taliban and installed a democracy in Afghanistan... If you read up on this you will find that both of these statements are highly questionable. Not true in my opinion. The Taliban are not crushed, not by far. They have withstood attacks from one of the most powerful technological militaries in the world, for over ten years. There is plenty of evidence that the Taliban will become part of the government of Afghanistan. Something to this effect has even been admitted by president Obama. And as for democracy, perhaps it's good but most likely it will achieve square root of zip all. The Afghan government is among the most corrupt in the world, full of Taliban sympathizers who've used their influence to support the Taliban (by for example not allowing an all out full scale attack coordinated with Afghan/ Pak gov't militias), possibly leaked information to the Taliban, and diverted money that should be used to rebuild into their own personal interests. They also worked to undermine the "battle for hearts and minds" attempts made by western organizations. Also the history of Afghanistan demonstrates that there has never been a time, at least in the last 150 years of almost continual warfare in that country, that any federal government is able to unite differing tribal groups and sects. Let alone, one that is seen as propped up by "Satan" (USA). So, sad to conclude that not much has been accomplished in ten years of fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 What makes us better than the taliban and Al-Quada is those things like not murdering innocent people, which is what a certain individual here is openly proposing. Yet more than one individual here has claimed that we are purposely murdering innocent civilians, so that was the point I was making - that we don't do that; that we are, indisputably, better than they are. Because the conduct of the vast majority of Amercian or Canadian soldiers is honourable and what to be expected of soldiers in times of war, I agree with you 100%. Totally and completely. who claim they as a whole or a group are a disgrace to humanity don't know what they are talking about. Once again, I agree with you 100%. Totally and completely. Yet, there are soldiers who have disgraced themselves, their uniform and their country by their actions. One person here is suggesting that this type of conduct becomes the way our militaries as a whole conduct war.I'm curious: do you agree with that person, yes or no? I don't think that's what Derek is suggesting. I think he is saying, in his opinion, that such conduct is the only way to "win" the war, and if we aren't prepared to fight that way - which clearly we are not - then there's nothing to be accomplished and we shouldn't go to war. Do I agree with his opinion? I can understand what he is saying, because we did suffer a high death toll in Vietnam because we were there but not fighting full force so it wasn't fair to those put in harm's way, but I don't think we should target civilians, ever, and I've made that quite clear in all that I've had to say in this forum. Do I think we can't win in Afghanistan because we aren't willing to fight that way? I certainly believe it's dragged the war out - can you say otherwise? - but I don't believe that no good can come of our actions there because we take the moral high ground and do not proceed in the manner which Derek has described. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Yes we are more honourable in warfare, less cruel perhaps. You overlook the basic fact that we brought our troops and weapons over there. They did not come here, and likely never would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Hard to be against an invasion that crushed the Taliban and installed a democracy in Afghanistan... A democracy, again, is mob rule - and hardly the bastion it is held up to be. Also, the puppet government in Afghanistan is not there for the good of the Afghan people, but for the good of the CIA heroin trade, Pentagon strategic territorialism, and oil pipeline contractors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Not true...Canada had not been attacked by Germany. The U.K and France declared war on Germany in response to the invasion of Poland. Canada is a founding member of the NATO Charter. The U.S. can justify war any way it wants, just like Canada did during Korea, Gulf War, Balkans, Kosovo, and Libya. Such logic didn't help Poncho Villa either, who "attacked" US nationals from Mexico. It wasn't an "all-out" war, otherwise a lot more Afghans would be dead. Re-read my post, I said "essentially" Canada was attacked by Nazi Germany based on the "political realities of the time". What that means is that in 1939 Canada's ties to England were much stronger as part of the Commonwealth than today. ESSENTIALLY, a direct attack on England was an attack on Canada - we were compelled by the political reality of the time to respond, thus it was justified. Canada being a founding member of NATO is supposed to mean they can't get out? Ridiculous. The U.S. does justify its warring ways in any manner it pleases, but that makes it no more justifiable than any other nation that resorts to such savagery. And to mention Canada with regard to Korea, Iraq, Libya, the Balkans, or Kosovo proves what, exactly? Yes, Canada - much like the Americans - use whatever justification they want to go to war...what's your point? Do you think I'm saying Canada is right, and the US is wrong? No, I'm saying both nations fight wars that are unjustifiable, and it ought to stop. We can get into the semantics of what comprises an "all-out" war all day, but for the relatives of those men and women who've given their lives - on either side of the battlefield - the semantics matter not. As a compliant electorate, we all have their blood on our hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Yet more than one individual here has claimed that we are purposely murdering innocent civilians, so that was the point I was making - that we don't do that; that we are, indisputably, better than they are. I agree with you 100%. Totally and completely. Once again, I agree with you 100%. Totally and completely. I don't think that's what Derek is suggesting. I think he is saying, in his opinion, that such conduct is the only way to "win" the war, and if we aren't prepared to fight that way - which clearly we are not - then there's nothing to be accomplished and we shouldn't go to war. Do I agree with his opinion? I can understand what he is saying, because we did suffer a high death toll in Vietnam because we were there but not fighting full force so it wasn't fair to those put in harm's way, but I don't think we should target civilians, ever, and I've made that quite clear in all that I've had to say in this forum. Do I think we can't win in Afghanistan because we aren't willing to fight that way? I certainly believe it's dragged the war out - can you say otherwise? - but I don't believe that no good can come of our actions there because we take the moral high ground and do not proceed in the manner which Derek has described. I certainly believe it's dragged the war out - can you say otherwise? Actually I think the indiscriminate murder of civilians Derek is advocating would drag out the war MORE than anything else. The reason why Nato tries to avoid civilian casualties isnt because they care about peoples feelings. Its because civilian casualties endanger the mission and everything they are trying to do over there, and serious undermine the young Kabul government that Nato hopes will rule Afghanistan one day. Commiting atrocities left right and center would not bring about a speedy victory it would guarantee that there NEVER will be a victory. It would do nothing but guarantee a whole new generation of anti western terrorists. It would spawn decades of blowback, and a population in the middle east thats even more hostile to the west than it is now. As for suggesting that we target civilians less is proof that we are "better". Its really a matter of wealth more than anything else. The tactics used by various groups are dictated more by how many resources are at their disposal than anything else. Terrorism is a low-tech poor mans tactic, and if your average suicide bomber had a more elegant means of delivering ordinance to the target (a shiny new fighter jet perhaps), then tactics would be different. Edited February 4, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 keep rolling those eyes, lil' buddy! (Interactive) China Global Investment Tracker... last 5 years: run it, Shady... sure you can! Just look at all those, "brutal dictators and regimes"! Yep, I noticed several. That's for the link. If we cozied up to the same regimes, the same people in this forum praising China, would be critical of us. Hey, kinda like you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 China and Sudan: A Deadly PartnershipThe documents below contain extensive information about China's role in Sudan, its failure to stand up against genocide, and steps it can take to help end the suffering in Darfur. Darfur Apparently to some people in this forum, this is what "getting it right in the world" looks like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Re-read my post, I said "essentially" Canada was attacked by Nazi Germany based on the "political realities of the time". What that means is that in 1939 Canada's ties to England were much stronger as part of the Commonwealth than today. ESSENTIALLY, a direct attack on England was an attack on Canada - we were compelled by the political reality of the time to respond, thus it was justified. But "England" wasn't attacked. I don't know why your "essential" reality should be given any more credibility than the Americans'. Canada being a founding member of NATO is supposed to mean they can't get out? Ridiculous. No, it means Canada won't get out, needing collective security as part of its DND strategy and stingy defense budgets. The U.S. does justify its warring ways in any manner it pleases, but that makes it no more justifiable than any other nation that resorts to such savagery. Just as in Canada, it doesn't have to be "justifiable", just in perceived nation state interest(s). Why did Canada bomb Libyans? And to mention Canada with regard to Korea, Iraq, Libya, the Balkans, or Kosovo proves what, exactly? It proves you are not comfortable with expanding the domain to previous "savage wars" involving Canada. Yes, Canada - much like the Americans - use whatever justification they want to go to war...what's your point? Do you think I'm saying Canada is right, and the US is wrong? No, I'm saying both nations fight wars that are unjustifiable, and it ought to stop. Why? We can get into the semantics of what comprises an "all-out" war all day, but for the relatives of those men and women who've given their lives - on either side of the battlefield - the semantics matter not. As a compliant electorate, we all have their blood on our hands. Doesn't bother me in the least. They were not conscripts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) But "England" wasn't attacked. I don't know why your "essential" reality should be given any more credibility than the Americans'. No, it means Canada won't get out, needing collective security as part of its DND strategy and stingy defense budgets. Just as in Canada, it doesn't have to be "justifiable", just in perceived nation state interest(s). Why did Canada bomb Libyans? It proves you are not comfortable with expanding the domain to previous "savage wars" involving Canada. Why? Doesn't bother me in the least. They were not conscripts. England wasn't attacked? Tell that to the survivors of the German bombing raids over lower England. I am not giving more credibility to Canada's involvement in WWII than that of the Americans, never said it...so not sure what you're talking about there. Canada does not belong to NATO for security purposes, that idea is laughable. Canada bombed Libyans in support of alliances built on imperial interests, and contractor lobbying. Proves I'm not comfortable about Canada's past battles? I've already laid out in black and white that I'm worse than "not comfortable" I am outraged at the actions of the Canadian government through our military. We have decades of blood on our hands through unjustified war-making. We have sent thousands of Canadians, and millions of foreigners to their deaths through unjustified war-mongering. You ask me why both the US and Canada should stop fighting unjustified wars? Because as I'd said, war is and always should be a last resort. Why? Because taking the lives of another human being is immoral, barbaric, un-evolved, and just plain wrong. You know who else weren't conscripts? The millions of innocent civilians around the world who have died in the name of imperialism, and so the Board of Directors at Northrop Grumman could further fatten their bank accounts. Edited February 4, 2012 by greyman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 England wasn't attacked? Tell that to the survivors of the German bombing raids over lower England. Not when Germany invaded Poland...the nexus of your "essential" political reality. I am not giving more credibility to Canada's involvement in WWII than that of the Americans, never said it...so not sure what you're talking about there. Then why do you insist that declaring war on Germany was essential? Essential for who? Canada does not belong to NATO for security purposes, that idea is laughable. Yes it does...go back and read the history and current DND policy. Canada bombed Libyans in support of alliances built on imperial interests, and contractor lobbying. "Justified" or not? Proves I'm not comfortable about Canada's past battles? I've already laid out in black and white that I'm worse than "not comfortable" I am outraged at the actions of the Canadian government through our military. We have decades of blood on our hands through unjustified war-making. We have sent thousands of Canadians, and millions of foreigners to in unjustified war-mongering. But you only get one vote. You ask me why both the US and Canada should stop fighting unjustified wars? Because as I'd said, war is and always should be a last resort. Why? Because taking the lives of another human being is immoral, barbaric, un-evolved, and just plain wrong. Then why have we perfected ways to do it so efficiently? Let me guess...abortions are OK...right? You know who else weren't conscripts? The millions of innocent civilians around the world who have died in the name of imperialism, and so the Board of Directors at Northrop Grumman could further fatten their bank accounts. Northrup and Grumman nearly went broke. There is no such thing as innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Not when Germany invaded Poland...the nexus of your "essential" political reality. Canada was compelled to join the war as the political reality at that time was that Canada was essentially an English entity. England's justifications to make war did not require the consent of the cannon-fodder Canadian conscripts. Then why do you insist that declaring war on Germany was essential? Essential for who? I haven't said declaring war on Germany was essential, I said from the Canadian point of view is was justified. Canada joined because the country was essentially a part of England at that time, yet not in a position to question England's motives when it comes right down to it. Yes it does...go back and read the history and current DND policy. DND policy is rhetoric. Canada is not in NATO for defense, it is in NATO to ally with other perpetrators of crony-capitalist war profiteering. "Justified" or not? Canada bombing Libyans in the name of supporting war profiteering? Absolutely not justified. But you only get one vote. What's your point? Then why have we perfected ways to do it so efficiently? Let me guess...abortions are OK...right? Abortions are immoral. A life is a life. Northrup and Grumman nearly went broke. There is no such thing as innocent. Northrop Grumman is an example of the war lobby, which, is nowhere near broke. Innocent or not innocent is a game of semantics, and a waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotspinTV Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 How much is Canadian "honor" worth? It isn't so much a question of honor as an issue of economics when Conservative business policies leave Canadian businesses at the mercy of a belligerent neighbour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Canada was compelled to join the war as the political reality at that time was that Canada was essentially an English entity. England's justifications to make war did not require the consent of the cannon-fodder Canadian conscripts. This is technically inaccurate post Statute of Westminster (1931). In fact, Canada made a point of declaring war via Parliament (later than other Commonwealth nations) to demonstrate such independence. I haven't said declaring war on Germany was essential, I said from the Canadian point of view is was justified. Canada joined because the country was essentially a part of England at that time, yet not in a position to question England's motives when it comes right down to it. While not true, it still serves my purpose, to wit, that American and NATO actions in Afghanistan were "politically" justified in 1998 and 2001. DND policy is rhetoric. Canada is not in NATO for defense, it is in NATO to ally with other perpetrators of crony-capitalist war profiteering. Call it what you will, that is the stated purpose for Canada's membership. Canada bombing Libyans in the name of supporting war profiteering? Absolutely not justified. Correct, because it doesn't have to be "justified". We are making progress. What's your point? My point is that your righteous opinion/views seems to hold less weight than the collective will of Canada's political and economic institutions. Abortions are immoral. A life is a life. Good, at least you are consistent. Most newbies here fail to advance past this level in the game. Northrop Grumman is an example of the war lobby, which, is nowhere near broke. Defunct military contractors would disagree. Innocent or not innocent is a game of semantics, and a waste of time. Then why did you bring it up? 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.