Canada's much-vaunted "neutrality"

[jdobbin]

That's true.

It is Lebanon that should be condemned! For harboring and abetting Hezbollah! And letting them use their own citizens as human shields!

Anyway, I won't be surprised to know that those civilians who still continue to stay in their homes after having been warned by Israel are actually supporters of Hezbollah.

Even Bush has not condemned Lebanon itself. He warned Israel's government to not bring down the government there. The leader who might have been integeral to asserting Lebanon's authority in southern Lebanon was assassinated by the Syrians. Fortunately, in death, he brought about the withdrawal of the Syrians but that left Hezbollah to the south.

Hezbollah should be condemned for provoking this.

[Who's Doing What?]

Hezbollah has acted in much the same way the drug cartels in South america do. They provided schooling, healthcare, clothing, water, food and anything the people of southern Lebanon needed. The Lebanese govt. even admits it cannot provide the essential basic needs as good as Hezbollah. There are definitly Lebanese civilians who support Hezbollah.

Did anyone see the news segment where they went into Lebanon, and investigated how Hezbollah provides for the people? There was a maybe 12 yr old girl who was so thankful for what Hezbollah had done for her and her family, she had already decided she was going to devote her adult life to what ever she could do to help them.

Very disturbing.

And how is Hezbollah able to do this? Through millions and tens of millions of dollars provided to them from terrorist states like Iran.

Hey Argus! Get a clue buddy. Not my problem you missed the program. May I suggest you get informed.

[Hicksey]

At the risk of being beaten for it, I would prefer that Canada be nuetral. This fight has nothing to do with Canada. Choosing one side or another will not benefit Canada.

How can Canadian expect to remain a country of influence if we refuse to stand up and take part in the big issues of the day?

Because we don't really do anything in the world, if we didn't have significant natural resources and an economy to the south to wean off of -- Canada would be nothing. Mostly because we choose to be.

[jdobbin]

How can Canadian expect to remain a country of influence if we refuse to stand up and take part in the big issues of the day?

Because we don't really do anything in the world, if we didn't have significant natural resources and an economy to the south to wean off of -- Canada would be nothing. Mostly because we choose to be.

What sort of influence do you want? And what sort of influence do you think Harper's present policy has with whom?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The big issues of the day? Even the USA doesn't address issues they cannot resolve. Would you spend the lives of fellow citizens in a wasted effort? What of North Korea? What of China? Somolia, the Congo or any number of big issues of the day?

Canada, like other nations should concern themselves with the improvement of the human condition of its own citizens before it can speak against or for the citizens of other nations. We need not influence any other nation, we do need to respect their sovereign rights as they need to respect ours. If this nation is attacked by another nation we have the right to defend ourselves, but to undertake a war of aggression against another nation who has caused us no harm is another story.

The reality of international politics is simply don't get involved unless you can improve the situation. Since we cannot improve the situation then we should not be involved. All that this nation should be doing is advocating a cessation of hostilities to avoid continued harm to citizens in the affested areas. The politics of the negotiations have nothing to do with us, it has to do with them. Either an agreement can be reached or it cannot but it is the conflicting parties that need to reach that agreement nobody else can do it for them.

[Wilber]

If being neutral means I'm not allowed to express and opinion on something, I have no interest in being neutral. The same goes for my country.

[jdobbin]

The big issues of the day? Even the USA doesn't address issues they cannot resolve. Would you spend the lives of fellow citizens in a wasted effort? What of North Korea? What of China? Somolia, the Congo or any number of big issues of the day?

Canada, like other nations should concern themselves with the improvement of the human condition of its own citizens before it can speak against or for the citizens of other nations. We need not influence any other nation, we do need to respect their sovereign rights as they need to respect ours. If this nation is attacked by another nation we have the right to defend ourselves, but to undertake a war of aggression against another nation who has caused us no harm is another story.

The reality of international politics is simply don't get involved unless you can improve the situation. Since we cannot improve the situation then we should not be involved. All that this nation should be doing is advocating a cessation of hostilities to avoid continued harm to citizens in the affested areas. The politics of the negotiations have nothing to do with us, it has to do with them. Either an agreement can be reached or it cannot but it is the conflicting parties that need to reach that agreement nobody else can do it for them.

Generally speaking, I think that is correct thing to do. We help when we can with what we can but not lose sight of the fact that we can't fight someone else's civil war or spread democracy to people who seem determined to resist it.

[jdobbin]

If being neutral means I'm not allowed to express and opinion on something, I have no interest in being neutral. The same goes for my country.

I don't think it means not expressing an opinion on things. I think it means to be careful about taking an entrenched position before all the facts are in.

I think Canadians support the right of Israel to defend itself. But we can also observe that they should be cautious about getting mired in Lebanon.

[Wilber]

If being neutral means I'm not allowed to express and opinion on something, I have no interest in being neutral. The same goes for my country.

I don't think it means not expressing an opinion on things. I think it means to be careful about taking an entrenched position before all the facts are in.

I think Canadians support the right of Israel to defend itself. But we can also observe that they should be cautious about getting mired in Lebanon.

What facts? The more I see in the news the less I am convinced I will ever know the facts. At least not till this thing is over and done with for a while and hopefully some research can be done that will allow an objective analysis of what went on. Much of what we are seeing now is engineered and spun by the participants or presented in a way to get the best ratings possible.

If Israel gets bogged down in Lebanon, that's Israel's problem. If Harper takes a position that turns out to be wrong, that's his problem. At least he is prepared to risk taking one. Somewhat of a novelty when it comes to our Federal politicians. I have far more respect for someone who takes a position and can admit it if they were wrong than one who is not prepared to take a position at all. We'll just have to wait and see.

A question for all the fence sitters (and anyone else for that matter). If you were forced to live in a Middle East country for the rest of your life, which one would you choose and why?

[jdobbin]

If Israel gets bogged down in Lebanon, that's Israel's problem. If Harper takes a position that turns out to be wrong, that's his problem. At least he is prepared to risk taking one. Somewhat of a novelty when it comes to our Federal politicians. I have far more respect for someone who takes a position and can admit it if they were wrong than one who is not prepared to take a position at all. We'll just have to wait and see.

A question for all the fence sitters (and anyone else for that matter). If you were forced to live in a Middle East country for the rest of your life, which one would you choose and why?

That's easy. Dubai.

Harper is welcome to his position. It's just that it helps no one.

[Wilber]

That's easy. Dubai.

Why? I know lots of people who have gone to the Emirates to live and work. No question it is the best place in the sandbox but I never met any who would ever consider retiring there.

[jdobbin]

Why? I know lots of people who have gone to the Emirates to live and work. No question it is the best place in the sandbox but I never met any who would ever consider retiring there.

Don't get me wrong. There are problems there such as no vote. And if you are a low paid immgrant, it can be awful.

But if you are a teacher, nurse, doctor, engineer, businessman...it is probably the most happening place for activity in the world.

http://www.dubai.com/

If you look at this Dubai website, it has a picture of a nursing mom. Just this week in the U.S., people went hysterical over a respectable new mother's magazine that showed a nursing mom (pretty much all covered up).

This isn't your radical Islamic country. It is something new.

If their labour laws improve in the next little while, by far Dubai would be the best place in the Middle East vote or no vote.

[Wilber]

Unfortunately, many of the now radical Islamic countries didn't used to be. Hopefully the Emirates can avoid catching the disease.

[jdobbin]

Unfortunately, many of the now radical Islamic countries didn't used to be. Hopefully the Emirates can avoid catching the disease.

Nearly 80% of their population is foreigners. I think they know that their future depends on people coming to their country to do business other than oil.

[Wilber]

Unfortunately, many of the now radical Islamic countries didn't used to be. Hopefully the Emirates can avoid catching the disease.

Nearly 80% of their population is foreigners. I think they know that their future depends on people coming to their country to do business other than oil.

Historically, when 80% of the population has no say in how a country is run, it eventually leads to something bad, but let's hope not.

[scribblet]

I personally feel we can and should (we as in Canada and myself) take sides in this issue and say absolutely that one side is morally superior. Why - Well lets see who could possibly be the AGGRESSOR and the DEFENDER as we hould support the defender against the aggressor, true?

Does Isreal create huge rallies of tens of thousands and chant "Death to Lebanon?" (or in other cases 'death to America or the Infidel'

Does Israel create mass riots rampaging, destroying property and killing people over a perceived slight?

Does Isreal deliberately TARGET innocent civilians?

Will Isreal not stop until every Muslim is dead in the world?

Does Isreal do these things? Or is it the rest of the Middle Eastern Neighbourhoods that do these things?

The oppressed one is Israel. They have a right to own their home and they have the right to defend it.

[fellowtraveller]

Haven't read the entire thread, but note that any premise that Canada is a neutral country is wholly bogus.

The country was aligned with the UK until WWII, then part and parcel of NATO since 1949. NATO is not neutral, far from it - and neither is Canada.

No problem with me on that point.

[Argus]

Harper is welcome to his position. It's just that it helps no one.

Criticising Israel helps no one either. Israel will do what it thinks it needs to do. And it's not like we have any influence with anyone over there.

I don't think taking either side or neither side is going to make any difference. However, I think we ought to align ourselves firmly with Israel simply because this is the right thing to do. It might cost some Arab votes, but so what?

[jdobbin]

Criticising Israel helps no one either. Israel will do what it thinks it needs to do. And it's not like we have any influence with anyone over there.

I don't think taking either side or neither side is going to make any difference. However, I think we ought to align ourselves firmly with Israel simply because this is the right thing to do. It might cost some Arab votes, but so what?

We've criticized both sides when there was a need to criticize both sides. It was taking our side in things.

[cybercoma]

Harper is welcome to his position. It's just that it helps no one.

Criticising Israel helps no one either. Israel will do what it thinks it needs to do. And it's not like we have any influence with anyone over there.

I don't think taking either side or neither side is going to make any difference. However, I think we ought to align ourselves firmly with Israel simply because this is the right thing to do. It might cost some Arab votes, but so what?

You mean to tell me they're not talking about Canada's position all over CNN, FOX, etc?

[jdobbin]

You mean to tell me they're not talking about Canada's position all over CNN, FOX, etc?

They've never cared about anything Canadian except that we let all the 9/11 terrorists across the border, were responsible for last year's blackout and that Canada's Conservatives are sort of like Communists because they haven't immediately privatized healthcare.

[cybercoma]

Canada's Conservatives are sort of like Communists because they haven't immediately privatized healthcare.

hahahaha, priceless!

[jdobbin]

hahahaha, priceless!

That was some conservative commentator on FOX a couple of months ago. Tucker Carlson maybe? Can't remember.

[Argus]

Criticising Israel helps no one either. Israel will do what it thinks it needs to do. And it's not like we have any influence with anyone over there.

I don't think taking either side or neither side is going to make any difference. However, I think we ought to align ourselves firmly with Israel simply because this is the right thing to do. It might cost some Arab votes, but so what?

We've criticized both sides when there was a need to criticize both sides. It was taking our side in things.

For most of the last ten years our "criticism" of anyone but Israel was muted. We supported most of the one-sided, anti-Israeli resolutions brought up at the UN. And this was not because it was in OUR interest it was because it was in the interest of the Liberal Party which wanted to court the immigrant vote an wanted to cater to their strong and growing anti-semitic wing.

[jdobbin]

For most of the last ten years our "criticism" of anyone but Israel was muted. We supported most of the one-sided, anti-Israeli resolutions brought up at the UN. And this was not because it was in OUR interest it was because it was in the interest of the Liberal Party which wanted to court the immigrant vote an wanted to cater to their strong and growing anti-semitic wing.

You'll have to show me where the Conservatives accuse the Liberals of that over the last 10 years for their votes in the U.N.

Can you show me any link that accuses the Liberals of an anti-Semitic bias affecting their U.N. votes?