To defeat terrorism, we must leave the Middle-East

[Michael Hardner]

If the reason is moral, then what right do we have to instil our morality on other sovereign nations?

What right to we have to instill morality in other individuals through our laws then ?

It is the fix it part where the problems occur.

I agree. But people wanted the US out of Iraq no matter what - morality is people based too.

[Big Guy]

What right to we have to instill morality in other individuals through our laws then ?

I agree. But people wanted the US out of Iraq no matter what - morality is people based too.

Not sure what you mean but our laws are meant for Canadians - not others. Again not sure of your point. Which people? The Americans want them out, there are many Iraqis who want them to stay, whoever is in control just decided to thumb their nose at the USA and joined the Russian coalition.

[Michael Hardner]

Not sure what you mean but our laws are meant for Canadians - not others.

"Imposing morality" is something that we do to ourselves by law. There's no singular "Canadian morality" but we apply universal values, or values that we declare as universal, against violence and other behaviors.

In other words, we make it our business to prevent immoral behavior as the collective community decides. And there is also an international community that does so.

The Americans want them out, there are many Iraqis who want them to stay, whoever is in control just decided to thumb their nose at the USA and joined the Russian coalition.

Americans wanted them in, and Americans wanted them out again. Morality is engaged on behalf of various nations from time to time, but so is self-interest.

[Big Guy]

If we are referring to Canadian relationships with other nations then we have no right to impose anything. If we are to be treated as a sovereign nation then we have to have the same respect for others. Other nations have very different rules of social behaviour from caning for littering to capital punishment to polygamy to euthanasia conditions of citizenship etc. Some nations follow Sharia law. It is none of our business.

[GostHacked]

When strong-man dictatorships fall, you often see chaos as a result. Is that really a reason to support them ?

A sudden transition can equate to 'culture shock'. You only need to look at Afghanistan and Iraq to see what Syria's future (actually it is their present) will be.

What gives us the right to tell Syria what to do? And you can answer that by asking what gives Syria the right to tell us what to do? It was never a civil war in Syria no matter how much the media tries to beat it into you. I guess repeating stuff over and over again does creep into people's brains and their ability to think critically is destroyed. Maybe that is on purpose.

If the bombing and the war stopped right this moment, it would take a decade for Syria to even come close to what it was 4 years ago before the conflict started. And believe me, if the west or east feel like investing in Syria, it will be in certain energy sectors or something that does not benefit the Syrian people (see Iraq oil and Haliburton ect)

[GostHacked]

In other words, we make it our business to prevent immoral behavior as the collective community decides. And there is also an international community that does so.

How can we be moral when we support terrorism in other nations?

[dre]

In other words, we make it our business to prevent immoral behavior as the collective community decides. And there is also an international community that does so.

Thats a half truth at best. What motivates military interventionalism is a complex mix of things. Morality and altruism are just too very small components of that. They are always the components that governments use in the sales pitch to their own people however, which is why you believe that. Thats what gets spoon-fed to you.

Edited October 6, 2015 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

How can we be moral when we support terrorism in other nations?

I'm not speaking the moral correctness of our actions, but the motivation.

[Michael Hardner]

Thats a half truth at best. What motivates military interventionalism is a complex mix of things. Morality and altruism are just too very small components of that. They are always the components that governments use in the sales pitch to their own people however, which is why you believe that. Thats what gets spoon-fed to you.

I'm not speaking the moral correctness of our actions, but the motivation... for the public. It's true that governments will play the morality card to convince the public to support wars, and also true that sometimes there's substance to it.

[dre]

I'm not speaking the moral correctness of our actions, but the motivation... for the public. It's true that governments will play the morality card to convince the public to support wars, and also true that sometimes there's substance to it.

Fair enough.

[GostHacked]

I'm not speaking the moral correctness of our actions, but the motivation.

The actions directly negate the motivation. Actually a better word would be intention, not motivation.

[eyeball]

I'm not speaking the moral correctness of our actions, but the motivation.

Underscoring that only highlights our hypocrisy.

[Big Guy]

I'm not speaking the moral correctness of our actions, but the motivation... for the public. It's true that governments will play the morality card to convince the public to support wars, and also true that sometimes there's substance to it.

Thank you for your view. The substance question I suggest is subjective. I believe that the American point of view has mainly been one of benevolent intervention in other nations - for their own good. That implies an arrogance that the USA has the answers and knows what is best for the other nations populace. We are supposed to be "like them".

I believe that there is nothing Machiavellian about that attitude just a blindness that results from years of believing that they are the best, strongest and therefore the greatest culture on earth. Too often I periodically notice editorials in major American newspapers asking "why don't other nations like us?" They really do not understand.

I believe that nations require to be allowed to evolve - go through the stages and mistakes that eventually lead to the epiphany that democracy is the most beneficial and workable social organization to protect any society. We walked into Afghanistan, a nation the population about the size of Canada but with the majority of people illiterate and innumerate. Their main mode of entertainment was (and is) men on horseback fighting over the cadaver of a dead goat and village gathering highlighted by betting on dog fights.

We should not be in the business of nation building. We are not very good at it.

[sharkman]

So we should just give the extremist muslims what they want? How many times has this been tried already going back to Hitler? Giving up the middle east will bring a major conflict as the rapid extemists immediately grab more and more land, countries and people. They will do this in part to send refugees flooding our countries and swamping our resources.

Are we really that dumb?

Edited October 6, 2015 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

TIL Hitler was an extremist muslim.

[dre]

So we should just give the extremist muslims what they want? How many times has this been tried already going back to Hitler? Giving up the middle east will bring a major conflict as the rapid extemists immediately grab more and more land, countries and people. They will do this in part to send refugees flooding our countries and swamping our resources.

Are we really that dumb?

The problem is our policies over there greatly encourage extremism, they dont stop it. Western interventionalism is quite literally the best thing that ever happened to these guys.

[Big Guy]

So we should just give the extremist muslims what they want? How many times has this been tried already going back to Hitler? Giving up the middle east will bring a major conflict as the rapid extemists immediately grab more and more land, countries and people. They will do this in part to send refugees flooding our countries and swamping our resources.

Are we really that dumb?

You may be right but what are we going to give to who? What do we own that we have to give?

I believe that what you are warning about is called the domino theory which led to the domino effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

The Americans used that as the argument to get involved in Vietnam. They got their butts kicked and the dominos never fell.

I hope you are incorrect.

[Moonlight Graham]

When strong-man dictatorships fall, you often see chaos as a result. Is that really a reason to support them ?

Why do we need to support them, or not support them? Just let them be, as long as they aren't attacking us. Why do we insist on continual military domination of other sovereign foreign states so we can exploit their resources? It's something akin to imperialism. It's absolutely against the primary principles of UN Charter, it's the very foundation of international law: all states have equal sovereignty, no country should militarily attack other countries and/or violate their sovereignty. From Chapter 1 of the UN Charter:

Article 1 - The Purposes of the United Nations are:

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Article 2

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter;

Edited October 7, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Rue]

"Just let them be as long as they aren't attacking us."

There are the words of Moonlight Graham. Yes sir, see someone engaged in a crime, walk on by and mind your own business. Talk about morally bankrupt, cowardly, self-entitled, self-centered, myopic belief system.

Yah I know such people. They were in the millions and they sat silent as millions of Jews vanished. Who cares about a bunch of blacks in Africa getting wiped out in Sudan, Rwanda, Malawi, Biafra, Congo, right \moonlight Graham-if it doesn't harm you, who cares.

Hey as long as its only Israelis or Muslims dying or people outside your neighbourhood who cares.

Go on Moonlight, put up that wall and block out the world from your reality.

Oh no wait, you are against Israel putting up a security wall. Its only acceptable when its for you to block out the world. Guess what the smell, the stench, it will seep through any wall of denial and ignorance you place before its oncoming movement. That smell will come in. Always does. The rats are already in your home. Lol, you think you can keep them out? Hah.

As for Blubber Miley's usual inane intervention to show he missed the point and can only comprehend the literal meaning of things but no one said Hitler was a Muslim. What the thread responder said was the policy of appeasement, the policy of remaining silent in the face of extremism was supported by many with Hitler and Stalin and Mao and so any others, and it took brave people as individuals to first stand up and say NEVER AGAIN.

I have nothing but moral contempt for the view Moonlight Graham expressed. To me it is cowardly and makes a mockery of morality. I bare witness to those such as the righteous gentiles of Europe, who put their lives on the line to save Jews and others from Hitler. I stand with the Jehova's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Protestants or Catholics who defied Hitler and gave their lives for that defiance. I stand by Muslims who donated land to Jews for Israel and died because of that.

I stand BY THE RIGHTEOUS who have stood up to Nazism Communism, Muslim extremism. Good on them, and thank God for them.

The domino effect Big Guy now refers to was a phrase coined by the US during the cold war to justify trying to stop North Vietnam from moving into South Vietnam arguing it would allow the spread of communism to other countries such as Laos, Cambodia.

Those of us who read know its referred to as hegemony.

The policy of expanding one's empire and fighting all over the world to expand one's empire has been going on since the beginning of humanity. Empires grow, then shrink and die out and new ones then arise from the ashes, grow then shrink and die out.Empires grow just like a human body going through their initial stags of development, adolescence, middle age, then senior age then deterioration and death. Its not rocket science.

Its not a domino effect when we discuss Islamic extremism. Its simply gang warfare that spreads identical to cancer with one cell mutating into two then three then four and so on. Its fueled by lack of limitation It grows when nothing contains it.

Its simply a gang, a cancerous cell that grows until its obliterated.

Canada First's hyperbole of nuking terrorists has truth to it. You won't get rid of terrorism molly coddling it, ignoring it, denying it, clinging to this idiotic belief that terrorists only attack you if you attack them. It has to be eradicated at its source and the war to do that is bloody.

As for Ghost and his claiming fighting terrorists makes one a terrorist, its the kind of ridiculous belief system I have come to expect from people who have never had cancer. Only someone who has not had cancer would call his oncologist a cancer. Such reasoning. Police are terrorists because they might have to shoot someone engaging in a crime. Brilliant.

Hey you know what, walk on by when you see a man raping someone-know why-you'd be a rapist if you tried to stop him. Just walk on by. He's not raping you. Ghost, Moonlight, your logic is breathtaking. Thank you.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Rue

[Moonlight Graham]

Actually, "we" act in our self-interest, or out of moral obligation in obvious cases. I think that's a better way to describe it.

Understanding that the situation is confusing, there is still plenty of moral weight behind the idea that countries can and should intervene in internal disputes in some cases.

I can't think of any examples where we, Canada or the West, acted militarily primarily for moral reasons. It doesn't happen. Should it? Maybe, to prevent things like genocide. That's the idea behind R2P (responsibility to protect), but this a new concept in international relations. Since 1648 and the beginning of the international state system and the concept of sovereignty, and again the foundational concept behind the UN, the primary rule in international relations among states is that all states have equal sovereignty, and no other state should violate this territorial sovereignty or forcefully interfere in the domestic affairs of other states. The UN Charter doesn't say other countries are justified in militarily intervening in other countries for moral reasons ie: if genocide occurs, in fact it forbids it. Again, this concept came out of the 1990's with R2P arguments. Peacekeeping soldiers can only enter another country with the permission of that country, by law, other countries can't force internal peace in other countries. The UN General Assembly still hasn't adopted R2P, so it isn't law yet and I doubt will be any time soon. I guess it opens a can of worms.

The primary goal of international law and the UN is to maintain peace between countries. This is based on the idea that the best way to prevent peace is for all countries to never violate the territorial sovereignty of other states. To maintain this, after WWII the UN adopted the concept that if this does occur, all states should support the defense of the attacked state from the aggressor and reestablish territorial sovereignty and international peace (collective security). That's why the Iraq War was illegal and set a horrible precedent that Russia repeated in Ukraine.

If we're to intervene for moral reasons, if it's ever done, it should be done very, very carefully, and only in extreme cases, because it can open a huge can of worms. Russia or the US etc "legally" intervening militarily in civil wars etc. all over the world under the guise of "morality" is extremely dangerous for international security.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

Why do we need to support them, or not support them?

People feel the need to act for many reasons including morality. And we do support them, eg. Saudi Arabia.

[Michael Hardner]

I can't think of any examples where we, Canada or the West, acted militarily primarily for moral reasons. It doesn't happen. Should it? Maybe, to prevent things like genocide.

Yes, there have been interventions for these reasons.

If we're to intervene for moral reasons, if it's ever done, it should be done very, very carefully, and only in extreme cases, because it can open a huge can of worms. Russia or the US etc "legally" intervening militarily in civil wars etc. all over the world under the guise of "morality" is extremely dangerous for international security.

I agree.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, there have been interventions for these reasons.

Name one.

[GostHacked]

People feel the need to act for many reasons including morality. And we do support them, eg. Saudi Arabia.

Why would we need to support Saudi Arabia?

[Moonlight Graham]

Name one.

That's what I thought.