American Military Intervention

[FastNed]

In response to a private question, I will list my opinion of the necessary criteria for an American Military Intervention in Liberia or elsewhere.

Candidly, were it my call we would remain at home except for a response to a serious threat to Americans & America. My position however is held by only a hard-core of Americans, perhaps 15 to 20 % I would estimate so unless and until more Americans concur with my position, we are going to be dragged into these situations. I can not resist mentioning though that the majority of those calling for "humanitarian" interventions have never served in the Military but are so very quick to send someone else off to fight for "their" humanitarian values.

1. The lives of our Military Forces are precious and should not be lightly risked absent a clear and compelling national interest.

2. The Sheriff has left the building - we are neither the World's policeman or its conscience. Correcting the evils of the World is not our responsibility.

3. The National Interest to be served must be clear and compelling - if it can not be expressed in 100 words or less, it's most likely political BS.

4. Military intervention must be followed by civil intervention. If we are unwilling to invest whatever term of years is required to install a democratic system, we should mind our own business. Once we invest those years, our departure should be with the clear understanding that we will return if democracy is overthrown.

5. In the event of a multi-party intervention, under no circumstances may the Rules of Engagement be defined by any but American Leaders. All Forces involved must operate under our R.O.E. without exception.

My starting point on this was an recent article in National Review by John O'Sullivan which you can find HERE.

Down South here, the most vocal proponents of a Liberian intervention are those who were dead set against intervention in Iraq. I am curious to see if that holds true in this Forum.

[SirRiff]

FastNed that is a very rational and reasonble arguement,

Actually i think its far too rational and reasonable to ever work.

as we have all seen, in vietnam the Iraq war, it was hyped rhetic of politicians that led the charge.

in Gulf war I and Afganistan it was an intense event that triggered an expected response.

everything you said is correct, but there is no nation in the world so civiliized to ponder and abide by those rules. (pity)

but as amazed as i am to watch me type this, I think over rationalization about the self serving interests is actually too much of a bad thing. if a humanitarian crisis doesnt appeal to the hearts and minds of civilized nations like the US, Canada and Europe, then we are not deserving of the title "civilized"

I will use Iraq as an example.

I fully think that back in the 80s, or even after 91, a rational and ethical case could be made for removal of Saddam by the US, but preferably by the UN.

now everyone dropped the ball on that one- but i think the strongest case for war against Iraq or north korea would be humanitarian grounds. it is the only reason that nobody can dispute and that civilized nations must be accountable for.

he Sheriff has left the building - we are neither the World's policeman or its conscience. Correcting the evils of the World is not our responsibility.

I often hear that statement, but i am confused as to the perspective of it.

do you really think the US isolated from the evils of the world.

i mean, people say the US is the most "powerfull" nation in the world. in a sense it is true, but only as long as it s prosperity is far above others.

in terms of nuclear weapons, Russia could equally end teh world, and a growing number of countries could initiate a nuclear holocaust. so the US no longer maintains a nuclear majority as such.

now in terms of conventional army deployment, we see from Iraq that the cost is so astronomical that only the richest of nations can afford it.

if another major terror attack hit DC tomorrow morning the american economy would collapse significently before the end of the day. in that position, the US would no longer have narly the staying power around the world. it just couldnt maintain that level of expense and still have the highest quality of life.

so what i am saying, is specifically because you are the richest nation, whether admitting it or not, you are the worlds police force becuase it is in your interest to protect the source of your prosperity- a stable and grobal market.

by leaving china to intimidate taiwan, india and pakistan to threaten each other, isreal and palestine to fight, indonesia to radicalize, and middle east corruption to breed ignorant masses, it can only lead to americas diminished prosperity.

hell, can you imagine if there was a radical coup in saudi arabia tomorrow morning that didnt want to sell oil to the west? gas would be $5.99 a gallon.

but you are right about civil intervention and american ROE. I just cant imagine why iraqi seems to be left lingering for so long. if there was a huge international humanitarian army following the war i'm sure the "militants" would be far worse received then thay are now.

in summery the US prospers only by having a stable global economy- the highest have the farthest to fall and it is in the US's interest to prevent humanitarian and geo-political instability whether its popular or not to admit it.

SirRiff

[FastNed]

Hello SirRiff, some good thoughts there.

To be 17 and sent somewhere with people waiting to kill you sucks and it's even worse when you realize you must kill others if you are to survive. To retain any sanity in such a situation, you must believe that those you have grown up to respect, your parents, elders, the leaders of your country do value you and would not put you there casually or carelessly. Killing people is not "plays well with others", it does not get easier with repetition and it is a "skill" I would rather not have acquired. It is sometimes necessary but it ain't easy.

I have somehow survived to the point where I am now one of those "elders" and I have some damn tough criteria on placing another 17 year old American kid where I once stood, scared spitless.

To take Emerson out of context: "These are not my poor." Why should our children be sent there to die for them? I agree that life must suck in most of Africa, and then there is Burma, North Korea, China - I have even heard a rumour that agents of the French International Conspiracy took over the government of Canada twenty-five years ago and things there are also pretty bad - where is the line drawn on "Humanitarian" intervention?

You ask:

if a humanitarian crisis doesnt appeal to the hearts and minds of civilized nations like the US, Canada and Europe, then we are not deserving of the title "civilized"

I must respond to this by saying that we are talking apples and oranges here. Military Intervention is a formalized hold-up - it is puting a gun to someones head and saying "stick 'em up!" It is the use of armed might to force others to do as we wish with the very real threat that we will kill them if they don't. We can not gloss over this by claiming "humanitarian" motives. This is the next to last step of civilized activity and while it is sometimes a necessity, there needs be serious consideration of the consequences before we take this step.

Lets be quite up front about all of this. Humanitarian intervention means we are sending in troops to kill people. Are you willing to have Canadian troops at our side as we do this?

That the UN, the French and regional African Leaders all are urging we do this makes it quite suspect in my mind . Past performance of these people makes their motives questionable, to say the least

[Craig Read]

Ned, I would agree that Kissinger style diplomacy and Foreign Affairs doctrine works best.

Having said that it is definitely in your interests to do a number of things:

1. Intervene in Africa where national interests are at stake, and I believe Liberia is one area that fits. [another thread deals with this].

2. Force through political and trade pressuers [such as rescinding such agreements], increased military spending in Canada and the EUnuch states. They have been free riders for too long. Time to shut them up.

3. Use the UN to help with Civil duties only and humanitarian/child relief. The UN has some utility here, though in general it is abymsally useless.

4. Keep reforming your military along 'Rumsfeldian' lines. You have got a geat one in Rumseld. Follow his lead.

5. Keep Britain OUT OF EUROPE. You must convince the Brits that the Euro and further EU integration into the socialist superstate is NOT intelligent. Once the Brits fall for the Euro scam, their foreign policy is cut off. France loves this.

6. Lastly never tire to shut up the Dumbocruds and liberal nauseators at home. They are perhaps your most obnoxious threat.

In general I think your points and Sir Riff's are very appropriate.

[Lost in Manitoba]

It wouldn't be a stretch to say that I have a different political lean than the three of you but in some things I must agree.

I agree with Sir Riff in that the US is part of the global market, and as such has a self-interst in having a stable world.

I also agree with Neddy in that it is hard to sell a war that really doesn't appeall to Americans at large. How can you justify sending your children (and many of my friends) to end a civil conflict in a country that seems to be intent on killing itself and that has really little to offer economically or strategically.

The price tag of war is another issue that the average American takes into account. You see a deployment costing a billion worth of taxes while you struggle to find a community with good teachers and honest policemen.

The burden of humanitarian support (aka millitary action) must be shared with other nations. The UN is one way to go but as we've seen, the UN is all to often hobbled. Why in the world that non-democratic countries or those with gross human rights abuses are members of the UN is a mystery to me. Something other than the UN and something other than NATO, needs to be created. A universal charter of rights and freedoms, set non-negotable economic sanctions, and protocol for millitary blockades and intervention. One thing that I think that needs to be changed in any new organization is the concept of veto. Veto is power and that power can always be abused. In its place have a minimum number of votes to strike down a motion. But as I mentioned, certain events should have non-negotiable results, simply to prevent months or years of buruecratic red tape.

Anyway, I think I strayed from the topic.

[Hugo]

Just one point here:

America is the world's richest and most powerful nation. However, if you use that to force it to be world's policeman, it will no longer be the world's richest and most powerful.

Nations have always had to balance guns and butter. If you weaken your economy by increasing militarisation, you make yourself strong today, but weak tomorrow. This is one reason for the Japanese and West German economic miracles: they have had no military needs to worry about until relatively late in the economic explosion. Japan still pays only lip service to self-defence.

If America plays world policeman, they will find themselves with the same problem that was faced by the crumbling Habsburg, British, Ottoman or any other Empire: strategical over-extension. They will be forced to devote increasing resources to maintaining strategical commitments, basically, running to stand still. As they do so, they will weaken, as other nations grow stronger. After a few decades of that, Japan will probably be the dominant world power anyway.

[KrustyKidd]

If America plays world policeman, they will find themselves with the same problem that was faced by the crumbling Habsburg, British, Ottoman or any other Empire: strategical over-extension. They will be forced to devote increasing resources to maintaining strategical commitments, basically, running to stand still. As they do so, they will weaken, as other nations grow stronger. After a few decades of that, Japan will probably be the dominant world power anyway.

America has no intention of being the world's policeman. It has a vested interest in certain areas of the world however. Though I seriouly doubt that they care one way or the other whether or not the people of any particular region wave the stars and stipes or their own flag.

At one time China was the most advanced civilization on earth. The reason why there was never a great Chinese renaissance in world exploration was a simple philosophy; why go someplace else when you are already there?

This is what America faces. They have a political system that revolves around a highly motivating element; money and trade. You do this and I give you that. It is a society that no matter what, continues to build by always moving forward. Money flows much like liquid taking on the form of the container. It never sits under a mattress doing nothing but rather fills every nook and cranny and moves to areas where there is none to take advantage of opportunities. All this forward momentum allows the federal government to fund a huge military. While the military takes on mamoth endevors such as Afganistan and Iraq the economy keeps on rolling. Make no mistake, they can do a lot of these before the economy grinds to a standstill.

When somebody says “neo colonialism” I take it they imply the US is trying to take over a country and use them and the resources for little or no compensation. There is no profit from this. Lack of stability is the greatest threat to profiteering, A stable environment is in everyone’s interest.

Looking at America and the innovation, high quality of life and prosperity there is no motivating factor to colonize any unwilling country. To do so threatens profit without any return. However, the world is a dangerous place with many jealous people who wish to retain the old ways of feudalism while trying to attain the status of American power and prestige. These are a threat to America’s interests and subsequently the US. To counter this the US can either plan or react. Planning is in the form of aid, economic stimulus and maintaining good relations with other governments. Reacting is responding to threats by military intervention, aiding dictators who may be the lessor of two or even three or four evils, or in the case of Iraq simply removing one that may or may not have been a freind at one time. In any case it is of no interest for the US to try to remain anywhere to colonize a country.

In the last couple of centuries the impetus for Europe to conquer and colonize was economic, political and religious. They intended to stay in order to prevent anyone else from owning it. Not many goodies went to the Indians or natives of Africa for sure. Nobody set up independent governments for them, nobody tried to allow them to keep their culture. They did so despite attempts to squash the old ways. To call an American intervention in a country that was a threat to not only her interests, but those of the region’s and subsequently the free world (and most of the non free world) colonialism is wrong. It is aid and economic gain is a possible by product. Nobody intends on staying anywhere but rather fixe the problem and return the country to the people. Hence your concern that they would over extend themselves like the British is not applicable here.

[Hugo]

KrustyKidd,

Perhaps you misunderstood me - I don't believe that America should or would play world policeman, however, I was simply stating that if America was forced into that role somehow, it would be self-defeating as the act of fulfilling that role would render America increasingly incapable of fulfilling it. Relative American power now is no greater than that of Britain in 1870, and yet that empire crumbled through exactly that kind of over-extension.

I fully agree that America's best interests are not served by neo-colonialism and excessive involvement in world affairs. America should not be made to sacrifice her money, her resources and her sons for other nations interests, and as you said, no other empire or colonial power has ever done so. They went overseas with gunboats for their own gain.

The probability is that American power will shrink naturally of its own accord in time. Right now, America has maybe 30-40% of world economic and military power, and that is likely to fall back to around 12-15%, which more closely reflects America's population and resources. America will still be a world power, but not the dominant one. If forced to guess, I would say that Japan or a pacific-rim economic coalition including Japan will become the next dominant power - Japan is already the world's greatest creditor nation, which was the situation that heralded America's own rise to power. The truth is that American power was "artifically" (if such a term is not outright ridiculous in the field of grand strategy) inflated by WWII, which basically resulted in the older powers being crippled while America grew exponentially stronger. As the economic, social and military memories of WWII fade, that situation will change. Who knows when - some empires have taken centuries to fade.

[SirRiff]

two points

I. saying that its "not in americas interest" to assure basic standards of living throughout the world is untrue. although we know the US cannot solve all the worlds problems, the existance of desperate people is in fact a direct threat to all civilized nations, as afganistan so perfectly displayed. with continued overpopulation and declining supplies of food and water in the third world, every one of us is threatened by global desperation.

a time will come when much of the world collapses into war over basic resources. either us, or our children, or thier children will see this and they will suffer as well.

every attempt by rich nations to prevent the collapse of other nations is an attempt to prolong our own prosperity. in terms of the future, our efforts will be small compared to the loss of basic humanity that will occur when desperation finally envelopes the world and all known security disappears.

so it is in every nations interest, especially the wealthiest and most capable US, to prevent desperation around the world.

when criminals move into a middle class neighborhood, its the neighborhood that has the most to loose.

II. american influence if done with a highly ethical and humane character, would benefit the world. the truth however is often so violent and oppressive, that they only increase human miserty while reaping power and prosperity. this is evident in thier dealings with afganistan, iraq, and iran (and many others), where they have directly or indirectly participated in the most violent and immoral actions seen on earth since WWII.

SirRiff

[KrustyKidd]

Hugo, I don't think I misunderstood, we are on the same line but on different tracks is all. America has proven by political process, stability, economics and military might that their way works. Time after time it is the example for the era. Third world nations flock to gain money from them and all in return they desire is some form of payback whether it be political, military (bases or landing rights) or economic. Many do and many do not. In the end with the comming of age of these third world Nations their dependancy on America will lesson for whatever reason, be it closer ties with another first world nation or sucesses of their own. They then become an ally, not a liability and that is in everyones interest. If that is acheived then America will have done what it really wnats, become a simple member of a world that has it's shit together. Right now it is on top and only wishes to get stuff done and seems to be the only one that can or is willing. It's lonely and they sure would like to have freinds. The transition to become a world power would not be one of military might, economics or political alliances but rather a combination of all. To have that spread out to more nations is very desirable to the Americans so I imagine they are looking forward to the day Japan takes their place. Fading away to them would mean taking on a European work week and getting more time on the links.

[KrustyKidd]

Duplicate post.

[KrustyKidd]

SirRiff,Aug 9 2003, 08:27 PM the existance of desperate people is in fact a direct threat to all civilized nations, as afganistan so perfectly displayed. with continued overpopulation and declining supplies of food and water in the third world, every one of us is threatened by global desperation. a time will come when much of the world collapses into war over basic resources. either us, or our children, or thier children will see this and they will suffer as well.

I definitely agree with you Riff. The world cannot go on this way.

every attempt by rich nations to prevent the collapse of other nations is an attempt to prolong our own prosperity. in terms of the future, our efforts will be small compared to the loss of basic humanity that will occur when desperation finally envelopes the world and all known security disappears.

You are theorizing on the assumption that profit is the motivating factor in all actions by western society. In my previous posts with Hugo I explained that profeteering was a byproduct of aid and political transformation is a byproduct of economic profiteering. Both require a stable environment. This environment is acheived through various ways, none of them being the country in need of aid having an egomanic torturer as head of state. Especially one who had a history of invasion. Another recent example would be one that harbours known enemies of the country that has the ability to give aid as was Afganistan.

american influence if done with a highly ethical and humane character, would benefit the world. the truth however is often so violent and oppressive, that they only increase human miserty while reaping power and prosperity. this is evident in thier dealings with afganistan, iraq, and iran (and many others), where they have directly or indirectly participated in the most violent and immoral actions seen on earth since WWII.

Violent and oppresive? Dealing with Al Queda, Taliban and Saddam one would have to be violent. Oppresive because it is a violent world and to walk in that neighborhood you want to keep your back secure until you have new freinds. As for atrocities being worse than Pol Pot or Idi Amin I would beg to differ but realize this; Canada being 1/10th the size of the US has done virtually nothing to aid the world save stay out of it's way. Also realize that progress cannot be made anywhere until dictators, religious fanatisism and racial bigotry is removed. No matter how liberal one wishes a country to be nothing changes until it changes and change to a pre feudalistic society sometimes take radical means. I suppose that would mean might makes right but know any other countries that do that and then move in with a aid program, building contracts, free elections, trillions of $ in aid and so on and forth?

I know you are not America bashing and I am not defending them (in this post anyhow) but the world will not change because you or I wish. Dramatic events will have to occur, some are good and some not so good. In the end water will find the level it needs to enable co- operation in managing food, energy and environmental sources to give us all the things we need. The key thing is stability. Stability and trust so that resources can be shared and stability and co-operation so that international scientists can work together on non WMD programs and get on with finding new sources of energy etc. Saddam and Al Qeda do not promote stability, N Korea does not promote stability, Iran does not promote stability. Scientists without guns to their heads and motivated by fame, money and aiding the human race produce results. A twentieth century free society can mass produce those results. A people in slavery hepped up by religeous fanaticism cannot. Nor can people who are etching out sustinence day to day.

I appoligize for the double post. Computor glitch.

[FastNed]

SirRiff: You are in desperate need of a new focus control - your thinking is too fuzzy! Way too fuzzy.

I. saying that its "not in americas interest" to assure basic standards of living throughout the world is untrue. although we know the US cannot solve all the worlds problems, the existance of desperate people is in fact a direct threat to all civilized nations, as afganistan so perfectly displayed. with continued overpopulation and declining supplies of food and water in the third world, every one of us is threatened by global desperation.

a time will come when much of the world collapses into war over basic resources. either us, or our children, or thier children will see this and they will suffer as well.

Many of the problems you cite are either left in place untreated or made worse by fuzzy thinking "First World" activists who think they have some elitist right to dictate solutions for "Third" world problems. You make much about problems with food and water:

1) Food: Existing GM food products, i.e., "Yellow Rice" and others, can eliminate hunger throughout the World. What is preventing the spread of these food products is that very same "elite" bunch of activist idiots who have had great success in having these agricultural products banned in Europe. Absent a market for their exports, most of the places which would greatly benefit from the increased yield and nutrient content of GM foods, can not afford to loose their main source of foreign income. So they can't grow GM foods.

2) Water: The theoretical problem of Global Warming together with theoretical solutions requiring expenditures of 150 to 350 BILLION dollars per year (for just about forever) are touted by this self-same elite as "The Problem" of the World. With an expenditure of less than one years cost for this idiotic "problem", safe and adequate drinking water could be provided to everyone on this planet. But saving some poor family in a backwater third world country isn't as "romantic" as saving the world so you don't see these "elite" marching anywhere for safe and adequate water everywhere, do you?

You then prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you just don't have a clue with the following:

american influence if done with a highly ethical and humane character, would benefit the world. the truth however is often so violent and oppressive, that they only increase human miserty while reaping power and prosperity. this is evident in thier dealings with afganistan, iraq, and iran (and many others), where they have directly or indirectly participated in the most violent and immoral actions seen on earth since WWII.

You believe we are involved in a War against Terrorism to reap "power and prosperity" ? You have a severe case of Cranial Impactum Rectumitis . We are in a war for our very right to exist as a free people against Islamic terrorists and you deplore that we don't meet your "humane" and "ethical" standards. Bite Me!

We are involved in something which is very new while retaining elements which are quite ancient - the concept of a religious War. Welcome to the 21st Century.

[Black Dog]

Just a few notes...

Japan still pays only lip service to self-defence.

Japan has a relatively massive military and is the fourth largest military spender in thw world ($40.4B in 2002)

It is a society that no matter what, continues to build by always moving forward. Money flows much like liquid taking on the form of the container. It never sits under a mattress doing nothing but rather fills every nook and cranny and moves to areas where there is none to take advantage of opportunities. All this forward momentum allows the federal government to fund a huge military. While the military takes on mamoth endevors such as Afganistan and Iraq the economy keeps on rolling. Make no mistake, they can do a lot of these before the economy grinds to a standstill.

As the current state of the U.S. economy would suggest,

massive military spending does not equal a robust economy. The economy has tanked, the U.S. has hit it's debt ceiling and yet the military continues to swallow billions of dollars. Why? Because the U.S. military industrial complex is the largest welfare recipient in the world (witness the laughable missle defence program and the hideously overrun Joint Strike Fighter program). It's a neat little system they've got going: defense contracters get huge contracts for useless weapons programs to enrich thei rbottom lines with a generous injection of public money. In turn they use their welfare money to "buy" voices in the corridors of power through massive campaign contributions and nudge nudge business deals (see Bush I and the Carlyle Group), thus ensuring teh quid pro quo relationship between the defence industry and government continues. But I digress...

You are theorizing on the assumption that profit is the motivating factor in all actions by western society. In my previous posts with Hugo I explained that profeteering was a byproduct of aid and political transformation is a byproduct of economic profiteering. Both require a stable environment. This environment is acheived through various ways, none of them being the country in need of aid having an egomanic torturer as head of state. Especially one who had a history of invasion.

Funny, because egomaniacal torture fiends have been some of America's best customers. But I will agree with you on the necessity of stability to a global capitalist economy. That's why so much money pours in from western nations to repressive third world despots: it doesn't matter how evil someone is or how many of his own people he tortures and murders: if he can maintain a positive business climate, he's A-OK with the West (witness Suharto in Indonesia and the dude in Sudan who's name currently escapes me).

I suppose that would mean might makes right but know any other countries that do that and then move in with a aid program, building contracts, free elections, trillions of $ in aid and so on and forth?

I don't know any countries that do this. Just how many functioning democracies have ever been installed by a foreign power through force of arms?

1) Food: Existing GM food products, i.e., "Yellow Rice" and others, can eliminate hunger throughout the World. What is preventing the spread of these food products is that very same "elite" bunch of activist idiots who have had great success in having these agricultural products banned in Europe. Absent a market for their exports, most of the places which would greatly benefit from the increased yield and nutrient content of GM foods, can not afford to loose their main source of foreign income. So they can't grow GM foods.

A European view of GM (exerpted from the Guardian). Surprise surprise: GM food has little do do with feeding the hungry and plenty to do with profits.

The principal issue, perpetually and deliberately ignored by government, many scientists, most of the media and, needless to say, the questionnaire being used to test public opinion, is the corporate takeover of the food chain. By patenting transferred genes and the technology associated with them, then buying up the competing seed merchants and seed-breeding centres, the biotech companies can exert control over the crops at every stage of production and sale. Farmers are reduced to their sub-contracted agents. This has devastating implications for food security in the poor world: food is removed from local marketing networks - and therefore the mouths of local people - and gravitates instead towards sources of hard currency. This problem is compounded by the fact that (and this is another perpetually neglected issue) most of the acreage of GM crops is devoted to producing not food for humans, but feed for animals.

The second issue is environmental damage. Many of the crops have been engineered to withstand applications of weedkiller. This permits farmers to wipe out almost every competing species of plant in their fields. The exceptions are the weeds which, as a result of GM pollen contamination, have acquired multiple herbicide resistance. In Canada, for example, some oilseed rape is now resistant to all three of the most widely used modern pesticides. The result is that farmers trying to grow other crops must now spray it with 2,4-D, a poison which persists in the environment.

The third issue, greatly over-emphasised by the press, is human health. There is, as yet, no evidence of adverse health effects caused directly by GM crops. This could be because there are no effects, or it could be because the necessary clinical trials and epidemiological studies, have, extraordinarily, still to be conducted.

There is, however, some evidence of possible indirect effects. In 1997 the Conservative government quietly raised the permitted levels of glyphosate in soya beans destined for human consumption by 20,000%. Glyphosate is the active ingredient of Roundup, the pesticide which Monsanto's soya beans have been engineered to resist. "Roundup Ready" GM crops, because they are sprayed directly with the herbicide, are likely to contain far higher levels of glyphosate than conventional ones. In 1999, the Journal of the American Cancer Society reported that exposure to glyphosate led to increased risks of contracting a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The defenders of GM crops say we can avoid all such hazards by choosing not to eat them. The problem is that we can avoid them only if we know whether or not the food we eat contains them. The US appears determined to attack the strict labelling requirements for which the European parliament has now voted. If it succeeds in persuading the WTO that accurate labelling is an unfair restriction, then the only means we have of avoiding GM is to eat organic, whose certification boards ensure that it is GM-free. But as pollen from GM crops contaminates organic crops, the distinction will eventually become impossible to sustain. While banning GM products might at first appear to be a restriction of consumer choice (someone, somewhere, might want to eat one), not banning them turns out to be a far greater intrusion upon our liberties.

The theoretical problem of Global Warming together with theoretical solutions requiring expenditures of 150 to 350 BILLION dollars per year (for just about forever) are touted by this self-same elite as "The Problem" of the World. With an expenditure of less than one years cost for this idiotic "problem", safe and adequate drinking water could be provided to everyone on this planet. But saving some poor family in a backwater third world country isn't as "romantic" as saving the world so you don't see these "elite" marching anywhere for safe and adequate water everywhere, do you?

Don't give that bullshit.

Clean water is a huge issue for many NGO's and developmental agencies. problem is, western governemt's are too busy propping up bloated militaries and funneling public money into private hands (or into repressive anti-democtratoic regimes) to have any money left over.

By that same token, how many of the same poor families could be fed, given clean water, housed and trained for the cost of a single Stealth bomber? At $2 billion a pop, I'm thinking quite a few.

We are in a war for our very right to exist as a free people against Islamic terrorists and you deplore that we don't meet your "humane" and "ethical" standards.

Bullshit. Al-Q'aida, the Taliban: they are no threat to me. Just another cunning distraction from the real villains: the likes of Proctor and Gamble, Monsanto, Exon-Mobil, Eli Lilly and the rest of the pirates who are polluting our air and water, poisoning the very ground we live on for short-term profit.

[FastNed]

Black Dog, Marx and Lenin are dead! After 75 years and at a cost of millions of lives, the Soviet is gone. They couldn't compete with freedom, democracy and capitalism.

Like it or lump it, it don't work!

[Craig Read]

I have to laugh when reading GM food talk.

Hey einstein's ALL the food you eat is genetically manipulated. There is no natural food, unless you walk out the woods and graze on some daisy's or mushrooms. Evthg in the stores has been modified.

GM is safe, necessary and will ensure that more people are fed better food.

Relax with your nature is best nonsense.

And by the way don't eat that apple, i guarantee you that it has been altered over the past 10.000 years, since people first discovered the fruit in Almaty Kazakhstan. GM has been around for a long long long long time.

[FastNed]

You know, Canadians of all people should be the first to acknowledge that what really motivates Americans is the simple desire to give someone a hand. If someone has a serious problem, as a people we are always ready to help out. It's an essential part of our national character. Those that seek all kinds of evil in our actions say more about themselves than about us. So be it, we could care less.

In the aftermath of 9 - 11, we took a long hard look at our priorities and our relationships around the world. What we saw confirmed what some of us had suspected - we were being suckers. Every big mouth in the World would declare there was some sort of a problem and America had to fix it. Lot of people long on talk but damn short on pitching in to help fix things. So we Americans reached a cusp: "The Sheriff has left the building!" We are through being policeman for the World. You say there is a problem, well then show us what you are doing about it; when you put your money where your mouth is, then ask us for assistance. If you are not willing to step up to the plate and take your turn at bat, we are not going to let you or anyone name us the designated hitter! The sheriff really has left the building so get used to it.

As Liberia is demonstrating, we have even tougher standards for involvement of our military. Our youth are not going to be sent in harms way, to kill or be killed on some feel good mission. If you believe Americans should go into situations like this, exactly how many Canadians are coming with us, side by side? If your answer begins with "Well" or "But", then take a couple of aspirin and get a life!

[Craig Read]

Ned, Canada supports the UNO to free ride.

The US pays all the costs to maintain the system. Canada free rides off your military, your drug companies, your economy and then complains when Bush snubs Chretien because Canada does absolutely nothing to help out with the war on terror, except put 2000 men into Kabul which has stretched our military to the breaking point.

In the media here there is angst and panic that someone in the military might get shot.

Oooh. Yes ladies the military means war. If you don't want to die don't join.

Canada is a child country. An adolescent. Full of holier than rhetoric while ignoring that its tax and debt structure not to mention the inefficacy of its programs, immigraiton and military leave much to be desired, considering most are bankrupt.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Canada is an adolescent country Craig. I think, to a point, this is an advantage to our growth. With technology advancing so fast right now, it is important to think that we aren't so entrenched in the old ways that we cannot jump to the next level. (an example would be broadband: to find T1/T2, DSL/Cable in the city of Houston,TX is all but impossible, due to the fact they've spent billions in the last 20yrs on a system that will be obsolete in the next decade)

I believe that politics, philosophy and religion fits into this adolescent angst as well. The 20-something generation will be less likely to blindly follow traditional ways of doing things. This is where I have a lot of hope for the future.

[Lost in Manitoba]

As for the Canadian pressence in Kabul, what is the general sentiment on that in your neck of the woods Neddy? How about the UN slaughter in Iraq? I think that this one incident will mobilize the world, in opinion at least, into supporting the building of the new Iraq.

[FastNed]

Hi Lost, I mentioned quite some time ago that based upon comments from our people fighting in Afghanistan, the Princess Pat's are great troops - but are on a starvation diet from your government. No question, the "Pat's" represent the best of the Canadian traditions. I believe there are 4,000 Canadians in Kabul now but I am not aware of their Command Authority (US or UN) or what R.O.E. is in place for them. But unless they are hobbled by Command Authority or restrictive R.O.E., I expect they are doing a good job. Why is there little or nothing in your Media about their performance?

As for the UN in Iraq and even though the "Hooper" killed was (I suspect) a 3rd or 4th cousin from the California Branch of our P.E.I. Family, I must admit to a large feeling of Schadenfreude for it is an eternal truth that as you sow, so shall you reap. The UN like the Eurocrats has been in bed with terrorists for years; they assumed that because they had paid them off and supported them, they were immune. They just learned that terrorists are every man's enemy. At last, they can begin to feel what the People of Israel feel every day and what American's have felt since 9 - 11.

And candidly, no, I don't believe this will mobilize "world opinion" (if there is such a thing) because the vast majority of the World could care less unless and until it is their loved ones killed. World Opinion and a buck may buy you a cup of coffee - but don't look for change!

[Lost in Manitoba]

About media coverage on Afganistan, this past week I've read quite a bit in the different papers. As for conmmand I believe it's ISAF, which as far as I'm aware is a UN operation(anyone correct me if I'm wrong). Just wondered about the opinion of the Yank's.

Your comment of the UN and Europeans being in bed with terrorists sounds a little biased considering the American penchant for doing the same, but the ultimate condemnation is fair.

From what I've seen and heard so far, I am expecting some good(hate to say that) from the UN attack. Even former NDP leader Audrey McLaughlin(??) was on the radio tonight pleading for Canada to get really involved in the rebuilding of Iraq.

[KrustyKidd]

Canada is a child country. An adolescent. Full of holier than rhetoric while ignoring that its tax and debt structure not to mention the inefficacy of its programs, immigraiton and military leave much to be desired, considering most are bankrupt.

Our recent National Museum dedicated to politicions should speak for itself. Guess we don't do many earth shaking things up here. I suppose a statue for those brave PPCLI that had no way out but to fight in the Medak Pocket is beyond budgetary means.

Also, peacekeeping is a really good way of making the Canadian people think we have globe reaching influence. The numbers and money we involve in this noble endeavor are less than many third world nations put forth. It's embarrasing. And does anybody know it? Couple days ago there was a small garage sale notice sized item in USA today about Canadians in Afganistan. Going back a few years to Somalia. Our "National Embarassment" I asked some American Paratrooper friends what they thought and they had never heard of it. My gosh, everybody on the planet is holding their breath waiting to see what we will do next.

Tanks, air transport and ability to fight and defend your interests halfway across the world costs money and gets you respect. Blue berets, small arms ammo and cool new uniforms keeps the sheeple thinking they have it.

[Craig Read]

Soft power is for soft heads. As Thatcher said having a soft heart does not mean you should have a soft head.

Deconstructing the military, elevating Gay ie. Perverted Marriage, interfering in provincial affairs, upholding and waving around this bloody dumb Charter of farcical rights and spending money like randy sailors at a brothel is not what the Fed should be doing.

Canada has potential. Its the system that is corrupting the nation. We need a new confederal model.

[KrustyKidd]

Man do we have potential! It is so unbelievable how much we have.

Oooops, better get a government sponsored study done on how much potential we have so that we can study how to best get the proper government department to head it. High speed internet for every igloo!