Surprise! Israel refuses cooperation with UN Gaza war probe

[PrimeNumber]

Anyone can do whatever they wish to protect regional interests, who needs the Geneva Conventions? Let's just let our allies do whatever they want, we don't have to answer for the same crimes we hold our enemies to, its the American Way!

[bush_cheney2004]

It's also the Canadian way.

[PrimeNumber]

It's also the Canadian way.

I'm Canadian, it's not my way.

[overthere]

I'm Canadian, it's not my way.

There are exits in every direction, take one. In the meantime, here are some facts for you. If you're a citizen, they apply to you .

Canada is not and never has been a neutral or non aligned country. (and note that 'neutral' countries like Sweden and Switzerland are far better armed than is Canada. Both bristle with state of the art weaponry and are both weapons exporters)

Canada has been on many peacekeeping missions, and participated willingly in many wars too.

Canada has military alliances with many countries that commit us to fight and die under certain triggering circumstances, like Article 5 of the NATO agreement. Of course, our agreement to join NATO was signed by non other than the not-quite-Gandhi Lester Pearson.

It is an absurd and inaccurate meme for the left to portray Canada as some sort of angelic peacekeepers who have lost international respect by being engaged, by choosing a side. The opposite is true: our allies loathe Canada when we fail to meet our agreed obligations in times of strife. Soemtimes that involves talking, sometimes shooting. Like it or not, that is how it is when you live on this planet.

Independent countries have independent foreign affairs policies.

[eyeball]

There's never been a better time or a greater need to be neutral. Canada has lost the respect of about half it's own citizens due to the actions and behaviour of allies that Ottawa insists on maintaining ties with.

[overthere]

There's never been a better time or a greater need to be neutral. Canada has lost the respect of about half it's own citizens due to the actions and behaviour of allies that Ottawa insists on maintaining ties with.

With respect, I don't think you have any idea of how much it would cost this country to be neutral.

[GostHacked]

With respect, I don't think you have any idea of how much it would cost this country to be neutral.

Being neutral does not mean we need to be isolationists.

[PrimeNumber]

With respect, I don't think you have any idea of how much it would cost this country to be neutral.

It wouldn't cost us a damn thing, we would be saving money, time and effort. We have much more to offer the world than bodies and machines for war time. The right has such a hard time understanding this because all they want is for this country to be in never ending war, what do you think this accomplishes?

[eyeball]

With respect, I don't think you have any idea of how much it would cost this country to be neutral.

Really? You don't think the level too which Canadians are becoming polarized against one another comes without a price?

[jbg]

There's never been a better time or a greater need to be neutral. Canada has lost the respect of about half it's own citizens due to the actions and behaviour of allies that Ottawa insists on maintaining ties with.

And how productive are most of those citizens? How patriotic? And how true to Canada and its glorious traditions?

[jbg]

Being neutral does not mean we need to be isolationists.

It means the country with whom you have the longest border would no longer be an ally. Think about that.

[eyeball]

And how productive are most of those citizens? How patriotic? And how true to Canada and its glorious traditions?

I'm taking it as a given they're traitors and I imagine they're i probably average wage earners, I guess in some circles that's even more shameful.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canadians who express and support cutting off political, economic, and military support for Israel by the "West" while maintaining those very same ties with the rogue United States are inconsistent and naïve. If 50% of Canadians want such a thing, then they should lead by example with no more American investment, jobs, cross border commerce, media consumption, travel, etc. Instead, we see the exact opposite...a desire for more.

[On Guard for Thee]

Canadians who express and support cutting off political, economic, and military support for Israel by the "West" while maintaining those very same ties with the rogue United States are inconsistent and naïve. If 50% of Canadians want such a thing, then they should lead by example with no more American investment, jobs, cross border commerce, media consumption, travel, etc. Instead, we see the exact opposite...a desire for more.

Just as soon as Stephen Harper delivers on his promise to stop letting the US rip us off all the time we;ll be happy to do just that. Most of the media sucks so we don.t watch it anyway.

[bush_cheney2004]

This thread is about Israel, and as an American who directly pays for such aid to that nation and ally, I am delighted to continue doing so compared to the half-ass condemnations of present actions by the ruling Canadian government or America for political gain. Previous Canadian governments have also acted identically in support of Israel.

[On Guard for Thee]

This thread is about Israel, and as an American who directly pays for such aid to that nation and ally, I am delighted to continue doing so compared to the half-ass condemnations of present actions by the ruling Canadian government or America for political gain. Previous Canadian governments have also acted identically in support of Israel.

I thought you said it was about Israel, not Canada. Or did you get lost for a moment?

[Rue]

Neutral. Right. Sweden claimed to be neutral during World War Two and One and in both wars assisted Germany.

India claimed to be non aligned and neutral and throughout this status waged war against Pakistan in now Bangladesh and in Kashmir and with China.

Switzerland claimed to be neutral in World War Two. Using that status it became the banking capital of the Nazis and every other tyrant and to this day its citizens and its state exist courtesy of the interest on the blood money they have kept in their banks. Neutral?

No country is neutral. Every country in the world by its very nature does what is in its own best interests which makes its non neutral and necessary to find other countries to align with its best interests.

Neutrality is often misunderstood by those thinking its a card to play. You call yourselves neutral and presto magic, you never are involved in any conflicts-they only apply to others.

Neutral reminds me of the attitude snotty little rich kids took when I was a kid to justify why they wouldn't play with the others-take out the word neutral and replace it with snot head as far as I am concerned. Its a concept of a spoiled child who thinks he is above and better than others-who me play with a...gads no, I am"neutral". Its a pale pretext to try justify being a snob, an elitist who can enjoy all the benefits of other countries without taking any responsibility.

Neutrality. Right.

[GostHacked]

Being neutral means you can do business on both sides of the conflict. What is the problem with that? But hey it also seems the USA did banking deals with the Nazis during that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

Union Banking Corporation

Bush was one of seven directors (including W. Averell Harriman) of the Union Banking Corporation (holding a single share as a director), an investment bank that operated as a clearing house for many assets and enterprises held by German steel magnate Fritz Thyssen.[6][7] In July 1942, the bank was suspected of holding gold on behalf of Nazi leaders.[8] A subsequent government investigation disproved those allegations but confirmed the Thyssens' control, and in October 1942 the United States seized the bank under the Trading with the Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of World War II.[6]

How long has the Bush family been a thorn in the side of the US?

[Rue]

Ghost I will take your example, i.e., the fact that the US remained neutral at the beginning of WW2 to argue what I think is wrong with neutrality.

I wouldn't use the word wrong as much as I would say "ethical". I question the ethics involved with alleged neutrality. I think the US remained neutral not because it was neutral but because it had sufficiently pro Nazi supporters including Ford, Joseph Kennedy and the banks you mentioned and that was ethically wrong. So I do not think the US was neutral but in fact pro Nazi with many industrialists, while FDR was anti Nazi and in fact had to go behind the backs of his Congress of the day to get support to Britain-proving my argument there is no such thing as neutrality-I mean the net result of foreign policy can be argued as neutrality but in fact it was in that case caused by pro Nazis paralyzing FDR from acting in support of Britain and I would argue had the US come in earlier it may have avoided Pearl Harbour and who knows cut the war down in terms of length but that is hindsight.

As you stated neutrality allows one to do business on both sides of a conflict. That to me is unethical in that it takes advantage of a conflict.

If it was true neutrality, the neutral party would help bring an end to the conflict. To me in my personal opinion someone who exploits a conflict or plays both sides and makes money off them both is unethical-a parasite like Switzerland was. Some argue had Switzerland not taken in German money as it did and provide a haven for stolen Jewish money and the stolen money of many citizens of the world at the hands of tyrants, the incentive to plunder and hide that money may not have been there, Then again some argue, if not Switzerland some other country would have taken its place.

My point remains there is no true neutrality and the alleged neutral party often blows with the wind and sides with either side when its convenient,

To me its prostitution by another word.

A genuinely neutral person, i.e.,say a referee in sports, I appreciate. I just don't think a genuinely neutral country exists and certainly the UN which was supposed to be neutral is far from it in its biases of the day in favour of particular countries and against others.

If it were possible to have a genuinely neutral country or organization at the international level, I think it could be a valuable peace resolver but I think the UN has shown that is not possible in practicality.