Page 1 of 18 12345 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 1729

Thread: State of the world, state sponsored terror, terror and war in general

  1. #1
    grish
    Guest

    Default State of the world, state sponsored terror, terror and war in general

    In other thread, a member suggested the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    The conflict we are speaking about is the Palestinian one. Not syrian. Not Iraqi. Not Timbuktu. Create a separate thread and we can have a discussion on it.
    She has a point. We already have a busy thread on Israel vs Gaza/ West Bank. This thread is on everything else excluding Ukraine vs Russia since that too has its own thread I believe.

    So the rise of ISIS, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey Vs the Kurds, Egypt vs Muslim Brotherhood, Lybia, Sudan, North Korea vs South Korea...

  2. #2

  3. #3

    Default

    As a counterpoint: Attention to these things only makes them -- and us -- worse.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    As a counterpoint: Attention to these things only makes them -- and us -- worse.
    But if we ignore them they continue.

    If we hide our heads in the sand they get worse.

    In the last 100 years we have managed to kill between 75 and 100 million people or more and wounded jut as many or more (depending on whose numbers you source) in wars, violent conflicts, peacekeeping (peace making) missions and acts of terrorism.

    Take a breath and think about those numbers for a moment....

    Around THREE time the current population of Canada killed and as many wounded.

    As a civilization we continue to justify and tolerate these actions and the average person in a first world country is becoming desensitized and apathetic to it.

    What makes us, as a society, worse is we continue to allow it.
    Take no meaningful action to halt or resolve the conflicts.

    We "tut tut isn't that a shame" and go back to our electronic toys.

    From violence in our streets and homes to civil and international conflicts.

    What makes us worse is not drawing attention to it and not taking meaningful action or even calling those we have elected to account for not taking meaningful action on our behalf.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    As a counterpoint: Attention to these things only makes them -- and us -- worse.
    No I'm sorry, I'd have to agree with Georges Santayana "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". We can learn from our mistakes, if we're willing.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    In other thread, a member suggested the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    The conflict we are speaking about is the Palestinian one. Not syrian. Not Iraqi. Not Timbuktu. Create a separate thread and we can have a discussion on it.
    She has a point. We already have a busy thread on Israel vs Gaza/ West Bank. This thread is on everything else excluding Ukraine vs Russia since that too has its own thread I believe.

    So the rise of ISIS, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey Vs the Kurds, Egypt vs Muslim Brotherhood, Lybia, Sudan, North Korea vs South Korea...
    I'm a he. Though I can see why the confusion might take place with an uncommon name.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    As a counterpoint: Attention to these things only makes them -- and us -- worse.
    No I'm sorry, I'd have to agree with Georges Santayana "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". We can learn from our mistakes, if we're willing.
    This is not about pious wishes or stern moral lessons, but about the reality as it is. The simple reality that this "we", collectively, is never willing, and so we never learn.

    Stop quoting supposedly great thinkers and leave the crap alone.
    Last edited by AShetsen; 31-07-2014 at 11:52 AM.

  8. #8
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Don't worry i am sure the UN has a plan for all these conflicts...
    be offended! figure out why later...

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    Don't worry i am sure the UN has a plan for all these conflicts...
    Lol, great post!!!!

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,016

    Default

    The UN might have plans but with the current setup of the security council nothing much will be done unless the vetoing members agree which only happens on relatively minor issues. Russia, USA, China, UK(?), France(huh really ?)have vetoes.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    Don't worry i am sure the UN has a plan for all these conflicts...
    Seeing as the real power of the UN resides with the Security Council and the vetoes possessed by the US, China, France, Russia & the United Kingdom. I'm sure they do. Of course, the US isn't going to allow any resolution to pass that would have any effect on Israel. Basically, they've given Israel a proxy veto. Do something similar with other countries and their allies on the council and you'll see that the real problem isn't the UN, it's just one small part of it, the Security Council.

  12. #12

    Default

    And how many times has Russia or China used its Veto to stop any meaningful action in their spheres of influence? I'm sure its just as many as the US.

  13. #13

    Default

    In the past 30 years, no one had exercised more vetoes than the US.

  14. #14

    Default

    Here's the background

    In the history of the Security Council, almost half the vetoes were cast by the Soviet Union, with the vast majority of those being before 1965.[11]

    Since 1966, out of the total 155 vetoes cast, 133 were issued by one of the council's three NATO members: the US, the UK and France.[12]

    From 1946 to 2008, vetoes were issued on 261 occasions. For that period, usage breaks down as follows:

    The United States has used the veto on 82 occasions between 1946 and 2007; and since 1972, it has used its veto power more than any other permanent member.[13]
    Russia or the Soviet Union have used the veto on 124 occasions, more than any two others of the five permanent members of the Security Council combined

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...t_common_users
    And this:

    Ambassador Charles W. Yost cast the first U.S. veto in 1970, regarding a crisis in Rhodesia, and the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution relating to Israel. Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly on resolutions criticising Israel; since 2002 the Negroponte doctrine has been applied for the use of a veto on resolutions relating to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict. This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council. On 18 February 2011, the Obama administration vetoed resolutions condemning Israeli settlements.
    As long as Israel has the proxy veto though the US, the Palestinians are basically screwed.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    In other thread, a member suggested the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    The conflict we are speaking about is the Palestinian one. Not syrian. Not Iraqi. Not Timbuktu. Create a separate thread and we can have a discussion on it.
    She has a point. We already have a busy thread on Israel vs Gaza/ West Bank. This thread is on everything else excluding Ukraine vs Russia since that too has its own thread I believe.

    So the rise of ISIS, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey Vs the Kurds, Egypt vs Muslim Brotherhood, Lybia, Sudan, North Korea vs South Korea...
    We have a thread on the Gaza issue and others noted thank you.

    In keeping with faraz's request Grish created this one for other conflicts that do not currently have a thread on them.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  16. #16
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Here's the background

    < snip stuff on UN veto votes>
    What might be interesting in these UN stats in general is the number of resolutions on Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan etc..

  17. #17
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Cannot find stats, but here are security resolutions by year: http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/

    One of more recent on Syria:
    http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_.../RES/2165(2014)

    expresses being appalled at the level of violence (death of over 150,000 people including 10,000 or more children), alarm at 10 million people needing humanitarian assistance–6.4 million displaced persons and 4.5 million people that are hard to reach to access help (probably overlapping numbers), and over 240,000 as "trapped in besieged areas".

    Also mention 2.8 million refugees in other countries including over 300,000 since previous resolution.

  18. #18
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I wonder what sort of action beyond these resolutions we can expect from the UN and when will we see any sort of SUSTAINED public condemnation of this ongoing situation. There has been some protests, but they have since subsided.

    I also would appreciate any education on this conflict. Who is "in the right" here? Is it even possible to determine?

  19. #19
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Lebanese Hezbollah now meddling in Iraq in addition to Syria???

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...029917675.html

    or is it just Iran spreading its wings...

  20. #20

    Default

    ^should we also start posting links about the terrorist organization Mossad being involved in the region?

  21. #21
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    In other thread, a member suggested the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    The conflict we are speaking about is the Palestinian one. Not syrian. Not Iraqi. Not Timbuktu. Create a separate thread and we can have a discussion on it.
    She has a point. We already have a busy thread on Israel vs Gaza/ West Bank. This thread is on everything else excluding Ukraine vs Russia since that too has its own thread I believe.

    So the rise of ISIS, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey Vs the Kurds, Egypt vs Muslim Brotherhood, Lybia, Sudan, North Korea vs South Korea...
    We have a thread on the Gaza issue and others noted thank you.

    In keeping with faraz's request Grish created this one for other conflicts that do not currently have a thread on them.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    As a counterpoint: Attention to these things only makes them -- and us -- worse.
    But if we ignore them they continue.

    If we hide our heads in the sand they get worse.

    In the last 100 years we have managed to kill between 75 and 100 million people or more and wounded jut as many or more (depending on whose numbers you source) in wars, violent conflicts, peacekeeping (peace making) missions and acts of terrorism.

    Take a breath and think about those numbers for a moment....

    Around THREE time the current population of Canada killed and as many wounded.

    As a civilization we continue to justify and tolerate these actions and the average person in a first world country is becoming desensitized and apathetic to it.

    What makes us, as a society, worse is we continue to allow it.
    Take no meaningful action to halt or resolve the conflicts.

    We "tut tut isn't that a shame" and go back to our electronic toys.

    From violence in our streets and homes to civil and international conflicts.

    What makes us worse is not drawing attention to it and not taking meaningful action or even calling those we have elected to account for not taking meaningful action on our behalf.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    I don't think a lot of us just tut tut and get back to our electronic toys. It seems each evening we turn on the news the first 15 minutes is taking up with numerous conflicts throughout the world. Shake our heads wondering why this keeps happening. As for the leaders of the world doing nothing. Well, they realize the cost of war is not always in the lives lost or the people maimed. It costs millions (even billions) of dollars to deploy troops and all their equipment to go to worn torn areas. It's a great drain on the public purse. Then take into account that a country like Canada or the USA sent troops to these war zones and sometimes the public do not back that decision. Why send troops when we have nothing to do with the conflict. Then our troops start to get killed and maimed and it makes matters worse. We, the public, are getting battle weary and we are not even on the front lines. We get tired of seeing the carnage from people who cannot sit down and work out a solution over a boardroom table. They'd rather use weapons that strike in the dead of night and kill innocent families. The world needs a whole attitude adjustment when it comes to war. Where do we start on that one.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  23. #23

    Default

    Best question of the thread...
    The world needs a whole attitude adjustment when it comes to war. Where do we start on that one?
    Thanks Gemini

  24. #24

    Default

    It's going to have to start with the generations that come after us but it's going to take a long, long time to do. They will have to learn that the best solution to conflict is not war but dialogue. If it does not stop now the weapons of today will just get more and more powerful and sophisticated. I'm all for women's equality but when women enrol for active combat it dilutes the conversation for an end to war. Women seemed to be the voice of reason when it came to war. They don't want their men or their sons to be killed, maimed or missing in action. Men tend to say it's the cost of war, women would cry for it to end. It might seem a subtle change but now it indicates that some women think some causes are worth killing for. In theory what causes are worth killing for when compromises can be made. Women by nature are supposed to be the nurtures, the carers, the peace makers. I'm not saying we should go back to the days when the little women stayed in the kitchen but adding them to the active combat roster is not the progress they need to end wars. And at this stage taking them off the combat roster is not going to end wars either.
    Last edited by Gemini; 31-07-2014 at 02:59 PM.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Best question of the thread...
    The world needs a whole attitude adjustment when it comes to war. Where do we start on that one?
    Thanks Gemini
    War is too profitable for the military industrial complex for it to stop. Money, power, endless conflicts, control of the masses. Shades of 1984
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  26. #26

    Default

    The best solution to war is not dialogue, but trade and commerce.

    Countries seem to be at peace with each other when there is a mutual movement of goods, services, and money. Economic sanctions and embargoes only seem to escalate tensions. People will stop fighting with people they hate as long as there is money to be made.

  27. #27

    Default

    Yes, for some war can be very profitable. War is an industry unto itself.
    It's been sold to the public in so many forms we get desensitized to it. New weapons used 10 years ago were billed as destructive, deadly. Now they are 'conventional weapons of war' as if by calling them that takes away their power. The new weapons of today will no doubt get the same subtle name change. Even the thread here about which fighter jet should Canada pick has garnered hundreds of responses and thousands of people reading it. I bet there is not one response on that thread that someone has said fighter jets should be destroyed. We have all bought into the war machine. When the Vietnam war was taking place and day after day there was footage of wounded soldiers, body bags, carnage all round the government realized it could not continue to justify this war to the American people. Now, with instant electronic media we get a constant feed all the time. Just another day in the office. I am sure their are little kids out their that do not know the difference between a movie a video game and real live war coverage. It's all a blur to them.
    Last edited by Gemini; 31-07-2014 at 04:28 PM.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    The best solution to war is not dialogue, but trade and commerce.

    Countries seem to be at peace with each other when there is a mutual movement of goods, services, and money. Economic sanctions and embargoes only seem to escalate tensions. People will stop fighting with people they hate as long as there is money to be made.
    Sometimes trade can be a two way street. Oil is a commodity that can be fought for or fought to protect. Economic sanctions and embargoes only seem to hurt the voiceless people of the country. The hierarchy can get anything they want on the black market as they have the means to do it. Saddam Hussein and his family had untold wealth and yet his people lived in poverty.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  29. #29
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ I think the situation in Iraq has more to do with revenge and religion than anything else although a Persian friend (who refuses to be called Iranian) claims that all the big religion leaders there abuse drugs and profit from vast holdings that continue to grow by them manipulating religion into getting more. It may yet be true if ISIS has a money-hungry string puller in the background.

  30. #30
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Fighting spreads to Kurdish areas of Iraq:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28640807

  31. #31
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Meanwhile in Syria and Lebanon:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28640618

    "Thousands flee lebanese town" from syrian rebels. So Assad is brutal, but are the rebels any better? I have no idea who to support there...

  32. #32
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    hows that Arab spring been working out. good I am assuming.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  33. #33

    Default

    Gemini

    You are hitting some great points on this thread...
    Just another day in the office. I am sure their are little kids out their that do not know the difference between a movie a video game and real live war coverage. It's all a blur to them.
    We seem to have lost our humanity to instant gratification and profits in many ways.

    Across the globe we see opposing views escalate to armed conflict almost casually and instantly.

    Violence has become the "fast", "accepted" solution...

    Crimea, Afghanistan, Syria, and on and on.

    Even locally Edmonton has seen it's share of shoot outs between gangs using semi automatic and automatic weapons.

    Your earlier comment...
    The world needs a whole attitude adjustment when it comes to war. Where do we start on that one?
    pretty much says it all.

    Till we start answering your question I fear it will only get worse.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  34. #34

    Default

    An interesting documentary on Ideas on CBC this afternoon. The birth of modern propaganda and the march to war. Bush/Cheney basically played the public like a violin and took a textbook example right from WW i.

    The webpage includes examples of propaganda posters, appealing to patriotism and dehumanizing the enemy.

    http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/201...lic-relations/

  35. #35
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    hows that Arab spring been working out. good I am assuming.
    How's that French Revolution working out? The Revolution itself was 10 years alone, and that's not even counting all the screwing around with Napoleon that followed. The kinds of changes we're seeing throughout the Middle East don't neatly wrap themselves up in a couple years. And unfortunately, a lot of the problems that are ongoing stem from the aftermath of colonialism, with borders drawn fairly arbitrarily by the colonial powers resulting in nations like Iraq comprised of multiple ethnic and religious groups that pretty much despise each other.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    An interesting documentary on Ideas on CBC this afternoon. The birth of modern propaganda and the march to war. Bush/Cheney basically played the public like a violin and took a textbook example right from WW i.

    The webpage includes examples of propaganda posters, appealing to patriotism and dehumanizing the enemy.

    http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/201...lic-relations/
    Your post makes this sound like something new...

    The same (basic) methodology goes back beyond Egyptian times.

    Only the technology of delivery has changed...and the fact mankind seems to refuse to learn from past mistakes.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  37. #37
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,100

    Default

    The refusal to learn from past mistakes is the real tragedy here.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    An interesting documentary on Ideas on CBC this afternoon. The birth of modern propaganda and the march to war. Bush/Cheney basically played the public like a violin and took a textbook example right from WW i.

    The webpage includes examples of propaganda posters, appealing to patriotism and dehumanizing the enemy.

    http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/201...lic-relations/
    Your post makes this sound like something new...

    The same (basic) methodology goes back beyond Egyptian times.

    Only the technology of delivery has changed...and the fact mankind seems to refuse to learn from past mistakes.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    I'm well aware of how far back propaganda goes but I was commenting on the context of the program. I didn't hear the entire show and was only referring to the elements that were mentioned. I didn't want to speak of earlier examples and have people find out that it wasn't covered on the program.

    In the modern context thought, I don't recall an earlier example of a opposition party writing an editorial in a foreign newspaper decrying the failure of our own government for failing to join a war. Is it possible that Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day were the first to do so?

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...81540524220000

  39. #39

    Default

    In the modern context thought, I don't recall an earlier example of a opposition party writing an editorial in a foreign newspaper decrying the failure of our own government for failing to join a war. Is it possible that Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day were the first to do so?
    As I recall, but it seems difficult to find internet references to the articles, you will find "similar" diatribes in the United States prior to their entry to the Second World War.

    Earlier still were once again "similar" articles about various countries not engaging in the Spanish Civil War when Nazi Germany and the USSR were already (deeply) involved.

    So while not identical...very similar and in the same vein.

    (edit, added after)
    Seems we repeat virtually all of the mistakes of past wars and conflicts right down to the propaganda and diatribes...shame.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 05-08-2014 at 11:13 AM.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    hows that Arab spring been working out. good I am assuming.
    How's that French Revolution working out? The Revolution itself was 10 years alone, and that's not even counting all the screwing around with Napoleon that followed. The kinds of changes we're seeing throughout the Middle East don't neatly wrap themselves up in a couple years. And unfortunately, a lot of the problems that are ongoing stem from the aftermath of colonialism, with borders drawn fairly arbitrarily by the colonial powers resulting in nations like Iraq comprised of multiple ethnic and religious groups that pretty much despise each other.
    Interesting point. I was revisiting WW1 history and the Ottomans had 3 independent areas for Shias, Kurds, and Sunnis. Then came the colonial powers and their willful ignorance led to the 3 groups being clumped together in one country. It's disgusting how they literally drew arbitrary lines on the map to divide up the Middle East not taking into account the history of the land and the people.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    In the modern context thought, I don't recall an earlier example of a opposition party writing an editorial in a foreign newspaper decrying the failure of our own government for failing to join a war. Is it possible that Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day were the first to do so?
    As I recall, but it seems difficult to find internet references to the articles, you will find "similar" diatribes in the United States prior to their entry to the Second World War.

    Earlier still were once again "similar" articles about various countries not engaging in the Spanish Civil War when Nazi Germany and the USSR were already (deeply) involved.

    So while not identical...very similar and in the same vein.

    (edit, added after)
    Seems we repeat virtually all of the mistakes of past wars and conflicts right down to the propaganda and diatribes...shame.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Similar perhaps but the real telling point in this case was that a member of the government went to a foreign newspaper to attack his own country for not joining a war that was being started by the country that was home to the newspaper.

    Not only did Harper his countries own government in a foreign paper but he also believed that one of the reasons for going to war was to ensure Canadians would benefit financially from the reconstruction.

    Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.
    Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003
    Yes, he believes that there's no upside to staying out of an illegal war that was based on lies. And yet, he's standing at the National War Museum and saying this:

    “Amid the appalling loss, by any measure, Canada as a truly independent country was forged in the fires of the First World War,” Harper told a military crowd gathered at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.
    This is a man who's always seeing war as the best option and is more than willing to send other people's children to fight and die.

    Canada was not forged in the fires of the First World War. It had a number of military firsts but the country was already well established at the time. This was not a war fought for our independence nor to defend ourselves against an attack on our country. It was coming to the defense of our allies. Framing it as being a defining moment where we earned our independence is appalling, as if a countries independence is contingent on how much of it's blood can be spilled in battle.

  42. #42
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    In the modern context thought, I don't recall an earlier example of a opposition party writing an editorial in a foreign newspaper decrying the failure of our own government for failing to join a war. Is it possible that Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day were the first to do so?
    As I recall, but it seems difficult to find internet references to the articles, you will find "similar" diatribes in the United States prior to their entry to the Second World War.

    Earlier still were once again "similar" articles about various countries not engaging in the Spanish Civil War when Nazi Germany and the USSR were already (deeply) involved.

    So while not identical...very similar and in the same vein.

    (edit, added after)
    Seems we repeat virtually all of the mistakes of past wars and conflicts right down to the propaganda and diatribes...shame.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Similar perhaps but the real telling point in this case was that a member of the government went to a foreign newspaper to attack his own country for not joining a war that was being started by the country that was home to the newspaper.

    Not only did Harper his countries own government in a foreign paper but he also believed that one of the reasons for going to war was to ensure Canadians would benefit financially from the reconstruction.

    Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.
    Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003
    Yes, he believes that there's no upside to staying out of an illegal war that was based on lies. And yet, he's standing at the National War Museum and saying this:

    “Amid the appalling loss, by any measure, Canada as a truly independent country was forged in the fires of the First World War,” Harper told a military crowd gathered at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.
    This is a man who's always seeing war as the best option and is more than willing to send other people's children to fight and die.

    Canada was not forged in the fires of the First World War. It had a number of military firsts but the country was already well established at the time. This was not a war fought for our independence nor to defend ourselves against an attack on our country. It was coming to the defense of our allies. Framing it as being a defining moment where we earned our independence is appalling, as if a countries independence is contingent on how much of it's blood can be spilled in battle.
    i will take harper's stance over chamberlains... a man who never saw war as an option and was more than willing to see other people's children condemned to die.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  43. #43

    Default

    Like many armchair quarterbacks...most of us are working from a narrow set of facts (or facts set forth by agencies with whatever bias we align to), we would never run for that office where you would have to be faced with these decisions, and we cannot even begin to relate to the complex nature of many of these conflicts...

    So, let's just simply agree that while we would love to end all wars, war is not something that is ending soon...unless we all start magically agreeing...
    Onward and upward

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    In the modern context thought, I don't recall an earlier example of a opposition party writing an editorial in a foreign newspaper decrying the failure of our own government for failing to join a war. Is it possible that Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day were the first to do so?
    As I recall, but it seems difficult to find internet references to the articles, you will find "similar" diatribes in the United States prior to their entry to the Second World War.

    Earlier still were once again "similar" articles about various countries not engaging in the Spanish Civil War when Nazi Germany and the USSR were already (deeply) involved.

    So while not identical...very similar and in the same vein.

    (edit, added after)
    Seems we repeat virtually all of the mistakes of past wars and conflicts right down to the propaganda and diatribes...shame.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Similar perhaps but the real telling point in this case was that a member of the government went to a foreign newspaper to attack his own country for not joining a war that was being started by the country that was home to the newspaper.

    Not only did Harper his countries own government in a foreign paper but he also believed that one of the reasons for going to war was to ensure Canadians would benefit financially from the reconstruction.

    Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.
    Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003
    Yes, he believes that there's no upside to staying out of an illegal war that was based on lies. And yet, he's standing at the National War Museum and saying this:

    “Amid the appalling loss, by any measure, Canada as a truly independent country was forged in the fires of the First World War,” Harper told a military crowd gathered at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.
    This is a man who's always seeing war as the best option and is more than willing to send other people's children to fight and die.

    Canada was not forged in the fires of the First World War. It had a number of military firsts but the country was already well established at the time. This was not a war fought for our independence nor to defend ourselves against an attack on our country. It was coming to the defense of our allies. Framing it as being a defining moment where we earned our independence is appalling, as if a countries independence is contingent on how much of it's blood can be spilled in battle.
    i will take harper's stance over chamberlains... a man who never saw war as an option and was more than willing to see other people's children condemned to die.
    Oh very nice. If you're not chomping at the bit to go along with every way your allies are getting into, you're a appeaser. Well played Ken. Let's kill them all and let their deities work it out.

    Sorry you didn't get the chance to see our solders march off to the war in Iraq. It must really seem like a missed opportunity to you. Just to be sure, don't cha know...

    And just to be clear, I did support the missions to Afghanistan and the first Gulf War. The war in in Iraq was transparently a total set up to anyone paying attention but you were too busy looking for your fife and drum to do so.

  45. #45
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    In the modern context thought, I don't recall an earlier example of a opposition party writing an editorial in a foreign newspaper decrying the failure of our own government for failing to join a war. Is it possible that Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day were the first to do so?
    As I recall, but it seems difficult to find internet references to the articles, you will find "similar" diatribes in the United States prior to their entry to the Second World War.

    Earlier still were once again "similar" articles about various countries not engaging in the Spanish Civil War when Nazi Germany and the USSR were already (deeply) involved.

    So while not identical...very similar and in the same vein.

    (edit, added after)
    Seems we repeat virtually all of the mistakes of past wars and conflicts right down to the propaganda and diatribes...shame.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Similar perhaps but the real telling point in this case was that a member of the government went to a foreign newspaper to attack his own country for not joining a war that was being started by the country that was home to the newspaper.

    Not only did Harper his countries own government in a foreign paper but he also believed that one of the reasons for going to war was to ensure Canadians would benefit financially from the reconstruction.

    Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.
    Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003
    Yes, he believes that there's no upside to staying out of an illegal war that was based on lies. And yet, he's standing at the National War Museum and saying this:

    “Amid the appalling loss, by any measure, Canada as a truly independent country was forged in the fires of the First World War,” Harper told a military crowd gathered at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.
    This is a man who's always seeing war as the best option and is more than willing to send other people's children to fight and die.

    Canada was not forged in the fires of the First World War. It had a number of military firsts but the country was already well established at the time. This was not a war fought for our independence nor to defend ourselves against an attack on our country. It was coming to the defense of our allies. Framing it as being a defining moment where we earned our independence is appalling, as if a countries independence is contingent on how much of it's blood can be spilled in battle.
    i will take harper's stance over chamberlains... a man who never saw war as an option and was more than willing to see other people's children condemned to die.
    Oh very nice. If you're not chomping at the bit to go along with every way your allies are getting into, you're a appeaser. Well played Ken. Let's kill them all and let their deities work it out.

    Sorry you didn't get the chance to see our solders march off to the war in Iraq. It must really seem like a missed opportunity to you. Just to be sure, don't cha know...

    And just to be clear, I did support the missions to Afghanistan and the first Gulf War. The war in in Iraq was transparently a total set up to anyone paying attention but you were too busy looking for your fife and drum to do so.
    i'm not chomping at the bit to do anything. you're the one who made a blanket statement - "This is a man who's always seeing war as the best option and is more than willing to send other people's children to fight and die" - with blanket consequences and i used one example to show an opposing viewpoint with equally disastrous consequences. i'm sure chamberlain truly felt he was making the best decisions he could for his country at the time, just as i'm sure harper felt the same way. neither man was perfect and neither were all of their decisions, decisions that i believe they both made in good conscience and sometimes with disastrous consequences which is all i pointed out.

    i didn't accuse you of being an appeaser and furthermore, i happen to believe that there are times where that is the most appropriate course of action. and i don't appreciate being accused of being a war monger simply for pointing out that appeasement is not always the best course of action for our children or for others. the best course of action any of us can take is firstly informed and secondly of conscience.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  46. #46

    Default

    When you or your children enlist for the next war to be fought for the value of the construction contracts, then you can say you prefer Stephen Harper's approach. I wonder if you would have gone off to Iraq if Harper had been PM. I'm betting not. Much easier to sit back and call people appeasers for actually looking at the bill of good they're trying to sell us than to put your own butt on the line.

    BTW, how's the whole "Let's overthrow Saddam and install our hand picked man in his place" working out? GWB had the entire world behind him following 9/11 and took his eyes off the ball because Afghanistan doesn't have any oil. Toss in a few speeches calling the wars "a crusade" and you've got a situation where you're bringing an entire herd into a china shop. But if you believe that we'd be better off with Harper in charge then, so be it.

    The march to war should ALWAYS be questioned, strenuously so. But, the preference is to wrap the whole thing in the flag, call those opposed to it Chamberlins and traitors and then invoke the Christian God to grant us the strength to kill as many of the heathens as we can, to teach them the lesson that we're peace loving people and we'll keep attacking them until they agree.

    "I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans."
    - Stepehen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, March 25th 2002
    Yeah, let's join a war based on ignorance.

    "Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory."
    - Stephen Harper, supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, April 1, 2003.
    "The time has come to recognize that the U.S. will continue to exercise unprecedented power in a world where international rules are still unreliable and where security and advancing of the free democratic order still depend significantly on the possession and use of military might."
    - Stephen Harper, May, 2003, speech to the Institute for Research on Public Policy.
    Yeah, we're going to bomb you into democracy.

  47. #47

    Default

    Hmmmmm

    When you or your children enlist
    Did that.

    then you can say you prefer Stephen Harper's approach.
    Still don't agree with Harper's approach in Afghanistan or Iraq.

    I wonder if you would have gone off to Iraq if Harper had been PM.
    If I had been in the service at that time I would have gone as I had sworn an oath to do so.

    If I had been given orders to go to a conflict I did not agree with while I was in I would have done the same, because I had sworn that oath.

    The march to war should ALWAYS be questioned, strenuously so.
    That I'll agree with.

    And then you go off to places where the facts don't follow

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    So, let's just simply agree that while we would love to end all wars, war is not something that is ending soon...unless we all start magically agreeing...
    I agree, it's no different from personal life, sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in, even if it results in conflict, otherwise, you just get walked over.

    Back in WWI most anglophones believed and identified with Empire, and many went to war over it (a war that made little sense). I think the same motivations were behind most peoples involvement in WWII, it was later that we learned that war had a very important purpose.

    To put Afghanistan in perspective, more Canadians typically died in a single normal day in the trenches in WWI than in the entire Afghan conflict of 158 dead, that would have been a "lucky day". I think our military learned a lot from the Afghan mission and modernized, it is a stronger force now. Maccleans has an interesting article "could we go to war again?":

    http://www.macleans.ca/culture/could...-to-war-again/
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-08-2014 at 06:08 PM.

  49. #49

    Default

    While I'm here and before I head home...
    Canada was not forged in the fires of the First World War. It had a number of military firsts but the country was already well established at the time.
    Might want to dig a little deeper...we did not hold our own constitution, we did not have the ability to declare war on our own and many other "rights" expected of a nation in 1914. We were still very much a colony in many ways.

    This was not a war fought for our independence nor to defend ourselves against an attack on our country. It was coming to the defense of our allies.
    Truth be told, we didn't have a choice...politically...Great Britain in declaring war did so on our behalf.

    While not a war for our independence Canada's participation and the many things Canadians did in that period earned our independence.

    The changes that resulted in our status as a Nation meant that never again would Great Britain take Canada to war, the decision and declaration would be ours.

    Were the others way to gain that independence, was it the "right" thing to do?
    We can argue about it...but in the politics of the day, that's the way it was.

    Framing it as being a defining moment where we earned our independence is appalling, as if a countries independence is contingent on how much of it's blood can be spilled in battle.
    As I've noted above it was a defining moment for Canada as a nation and apparently how much of its blood is spilled in battle appears to be one of the reasons, in the time, that we did in fact take that next step away from being a colony directed from the "Mother Country".

    Again you can argue if it was right, you can argue there may have been other ways...but just in the fact that the changes that took place because of our involvement in WWI meant no one would simply "take" us to war again is a fact. As evidenced by our needing to make the decision to entre the Second World War and Canada as a country declaring war on Germany in 1939.

    But that is a topic for September.

    Mind you did take a few more decades to repatriate our constitution.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 05-08-2014 at 06:01 PM.

  50. #50
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    When you or your children enlist for the next war to be fought for the value of the construction contracts, then you can say you prefer Stephen Harper's approach. I wonder if you would have gone off to Iraq if Harper had been PM. I'm betting not. Much easier to sit back and call people appeasers for actually looking at the bill of good they're trying to sell us than to put your own butt on the line.

    BTW, how's the whole "Let's overthrow Saddam and install our hand picked man in his place" working out? GWB had the entire world behind him following 9/11 and took his eyes off the ball because Afghanistan doesn't have any oil. Toss in a few speeches calling the wars "a crusade" and you've got a situation where you're bringing an entire herd into a china shop. But if you believe that we'd be better off with Harper in charge then, so be it.

    The march to war should ALWAYS be questioned, strenuously so. But, the preference is to wrap the whole thing in the flag, call those opposed to it Chamberlins and traitors and then invoke the Christian God to grant us the strength to kill as many of the heathens as we can, to teach them the lesson that we're peace loving people and we'll keep attacking them until they agree.

    "I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans."
    - Stepehen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, March 25th 2002
    Yeah, let's join a war based on ignorance.

    "Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory."
    - Stephen Harper, supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, April 1, 2003.
    "The time has come to recognize that the U.S. will continue to exercise unprecedented power in a world where international rules are still unreliable and where security and advancing of the free democratic order still depend significantly on the possession and use of military might."
    - Stephen Harper, May, 2003, speech to the Institute for Research on Public Policy.
    Yeah, we're going to bomb you into democracy.
    firstly, if i was in the service and my country went to war i would respect the oath i made on enlisting.

    secondly, you seem to enjoy vilifying harper for comments made in 2002 when even harper in 2008 admitted - albeit grudgingly at the time - he was mistaken when making them.

    thirdly, i'm not sure about the relevance of george w. bush and iraq and sadam and 9/11's contribution to this discussion unless you really want to move this to a 9/11 discussion. unless you're thinking that everything else that followed was reprehensible but 9/11 justifiable?

    fourthly, where have i said that war should never be questioned?

    fifthly, where have i invoked the flag, accused everyone opposed to war of being a chamberlain or a traitor or invoked the christian god for anything???

    lastly, where have i ever said "kill as many of the heathens as we can, to teach them the lesson that we're peace loving people and we'll keep attacking them until they agree", "we should join a war out of ignorance", or that we should "bomb people into democracy"?

    you need to learn how to have a discussion without projecting your selected opinions on others in order to justify your position.

    as tom put it, you need to quite going to places where the facts don't follow, particularly when it comes to accusing those attempting to carry on a discussion even if you don't agree with them.

    as for responding, don't bother unless it's an apology or a retraction - i think i'm done with this thread for now.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  51. #51

    Default

    And if we had stood up to Britain and said "No, you will not make that decision for us?", would that not also ensure our independence? Not saying we should't make the decision, just that we could have.

    Deciding that we have to send 60,000 people to Europe to be slaughtered in order to exert our independence is sickening. We're not a real country until we're drenched in blood?

  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    When you or your children enlist for the next war to be fought for the value of the construction contracts, then you can say you prefer Stephen Harper's approach. I wonder if you would have gone off to Iraq if Harper had been PM. I'm betting not. Much easier to sit back and call people appeasers for actually looking at the bill of good they're trying to sell us than to put your own butt on the line.
    Harper is our PM, he was democratically elected, like the Afghan action or not, that's our political system, I know of no better one. I'll be very proud if any of my children join the Canadian forces, and if they do, I'll support them no matter which PM of whatever party sends them into combat. I'd only not support them, if they didn't respect our democracy, for if it's a very small step from soldiers saying "no" to soldiers taking power, this is a critical reason they aren't allowed to question, that is for our politicians who represent us.

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    I wonder if you would have gone off to Iraq if Harper had been PM.
    If I had been in the service at that time I would have gone as I had sworn an oath to do so.

    If I had been given orders to go to a conflict I did not agree with while I was in I would have done the same, because I had sworn that oath.

    The march to war should ALWAYS be questioned, strenuously so.
    That I'll agree with.

    And then you go off to places where the facts don't follow

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    You have the duty to obey LAWFUL orders. If you are ordered to open fire on an unarmed family, you are under no obligation to do so. As a matter of fact, you are obligated not to.

    The entire Iraq war was based on false evidence, lies, unproven connections with terrorists (which were proven to not exist. As a matter of fact, Al Quaida hated Saddam almost as he hated us.)

    The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
    Condoleezza Rice
    Colin Powell sat in front of the UN and basically lied from start to finish. He willingly sent American solders into combat based on false information.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonath...b_2624620.html

    That is how Secretary of State General Colin Powell’s February 2003 Iraq WMD speech to the UN was described last Friday (Feb. 3) on PBS by one who ought to know, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary Powell.

    In a February 2005 interview with Barbara Walters on ABC News “20/20″ program, Powell himself declared his UN Iraq speech to be a blot on his reputation.

    Since departing the Bush administration, both Wilkerson and Powell have made it completely clear that they had serious doubts about the “evidence” of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and malevolent Iraqi intentions that was loaded by the White House into Powell’s UN speech, a speech designed by neoconservatives to initiate the invasion of Iraq. Both Powell and Wilkerson knew that the “evidence” was greatly overstated if not an outright fabrication.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/colin-p...no-excuse/1918
    When I permit the Canadian Forces to take a life, through the vote of my MP, I expect that the information presented to them and to me to be full, complete and truthful. If you can't make you case based on truth then you do not have permission to kill in my name.

    I don't want my solders to be mindless automatons. "I was simply following orders" hasn't been a defense since at least Nuremberg.

  54. #54

    Default

    ^nobody is saying soldiers are allowed to comitt war crimes, what are saying, is soldiers can't pick and choose which military actions they participate in, that's for our politicians to decide, whether they be right, or wrong. I didn't agree with the IRAQ war, but if the Liberals had sent our troops their instead of Afghanistan, they would have to go.

  55. #55

    Default What happened after the Arab spring?

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    hows that Arab spring been working out. good I am assuming.
    Your question answered by cbc:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/what-ha...ors_picks=true

    Tunisia is doing well...
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-08-2014 at 07:37 PM.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^nobody is saying soldiers are allowed to comitt war crimes, what are saying, is soldiers can't pick and choose which military actions they participate in, that's for our politicians to decide, whether they be right, or wrong. I didn't agree with the IRAQ war, but if the Liberals had sent our troops their instead of Afghanistan, they would have to go.
    Sorry, sending troops to combat based on false information is simply sending them to commit murder and to be murdered. But the Conservatives expect them to simply march to their deaths, singing patriotic songs as they go.

    Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and others should have been charged with war crimes. But, they have guaranteed that America now has no credible claim to being on the right side of anything. Much why the west's response to Putin's move in Crimea was so laughable. At least Putin could make a credible claim that there were ethnic Russians in the area and that it was previously part of Russia. And all the west could do was sputter and look like hypocrites.

  57. #57
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    So, let's just simply agree that while we would love to end all wars, war is not something that is ending soon...unless we all start magically agreeing...
    I agree, it's no different from personal life, sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in, even if it results in conflict, otherwise, you just get walked over. ...
    http://www.macleans.ca/culture/could...-to-war-again/
    It depends what you believe in. Sometimes you have to admit that maybe you're wrong. It's tough some times, especially when faith and passion and love enter into it. Some times it's hard for me to even know what reasonable even is, even if I can manage to put my feelings aside somehow.

    There are few needs greater than our need to be right.

    Nobody will win. The whole world has lost. We're all the bad guys.

    Someone (Tom?, Gemini?) suggested something along the lines of much of the western world growing jaded to the point war and killing is barely distinguishable from a game. I agree, somewhat. There's still a lot of people that care.

    It's a shame when the term "collateral damage" is accompanied by a shrug. It's beyond disturbing seeing "collateral damage", or a euphemism, greeted with wide eyed zeal.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 05-08-2014 at 08:05 PM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    It depends what you believe in. Sometimes you have to admit that maybe you're wrong. It's tough some times, especially when faith and passion and love enter into it. Some times it's hard for me to even know what reasonable even is, even if I can manage to put my feelings aside somehow..
    Which is why we have democracy, independent legal system, opposition parties, etc, it will never be perfect though. I still think there are times you have to take a stand, in personal life or governments, some people, including some in power, like it or not, are just rotten to the core. That's always been the case, and no matter how enlightened some people become, will always be the case as not everyone wants to be enlightened. A clockwork orange explored some of those themes quite well.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-08-2014 at 08:12 PM.

  59. #59

    Default

    Good example of missing the context of the times and inflecting modern dogma...

    And if we had stood up to Britain and said "No, you will not make that decision for us?", would that not also ensure our independence? Not saying we should't make the decision, just that we could have.
    No we could not have, we did not have the authority or the right as it had not yet been granted and our ties to Great Britain were such it would have been very damaging to all Canadians...abet only 8 million in that day.

    The other factor to consider is the Canada of that day was dominantly of British origin and/or descent...really think the Government of that day could have got away we saying "No we don't think so"?

    Not likely, the populace would have most likely revolted (unlike today where we go to internet forums instead).

    Deciding that we have to send 60,000 people to Europe to be slaughtered in order to exert our independence is sickening.
    First off we were not knowingly sending 60,000 (as high as 74,000 depending on source) to die, the Canada of the day was supporting the mother country and Europe in a time of need. In the society of the day...the "right thing to do".

    Remembering by the time war was declared parts of France and Belgium has already been invaded.

    BTW in 1914 most figured the war would be over by spring...

    We're not a real country until we're drenched in blood?
    In the context of the day you're likely not far wrong moreover, as much as I despise war and the evils that come of it, there are very few countries that have not earned their independence or freedom without the spilling of vast amounts of blood.

    I despise it, but that doesn't change the facts. Failing to learn from past conflicts has also made sure we have repeated the mistakes.

    And you would think that all the mistakes mankind has inflicted on itself with war and similar conflicts we would have found ways to make the practice obsolete by now.

    But not so far.

    Now what has this...
    You have the duty to obey LAWFUL orders. If you are ordered to open fire on an unarmed family, you are under no obligation to do so. As a matter of fact, you are obligated not to.
    Got to do with a soldier's obligation to go? He/She still has to go as deployed and ordered or face criminal action...but while there has the ability to refuse an unlawful order but it better be blatant and provable (such as shooting an unarmed family with witnesses that are willing to support an order was given) or you will get eaten alive under section 119.2 (if I remember correctly) of military law.

    The entire Iraq war was based on false evidence, lies, unproven connections with terrorists (which were proven to not exist. As a matter of fact, Al Quaida hated Saddam almost as he hated us.)
    While I agree and opposed Canada's involvement at the time (and still do), hindsight is 20/20....could you have proved it at the time? in a military court?

    When I permit the Canadian Forces to take a life, through the vote of my MP, I expect that the information presented to them and to me to be full, complete and truthful. If you can't make you case based on truth then you do not have permission to kill in my name.
    While I agree with your intent, you do realize that we live in a representative democracy and once you cast your vote your permission and your right to revoke it is gone? It is passed to the elected representative and you have lost your voice.

    Be it Civic, Provincial or Federal politics in Canada

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  60. #60
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,779

    Default

    ^^Yeah, I know. My saying "it depends" isn't really a fair response.

    It's just that some people/groups/governments/militias etc are taking a stand that involves wiping out other people/groups/organizations/governments in the kill them sense of the word.

    It's the very righteousness, standing up for something they believe in, that is frightening to me.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  61. #61

    Default

    If people had listened to the discounting voices leading up the Iraq war then you would have known that what we were being told were lies. The aluminum tubes that were supposedly rocket parts? Disproved. in short order. The yellow cake? Disproved. The same ca be said for the vast majority of the rest of the so called evidence. But, voices were drowned out, reputations tarnished with cries of "traitor" or "collaborator". But the sounds of the fife and drum and wrapping of our leaders in the flag proved irresistible.

    People love a good war. It makes for riveting television. Remember the broadcasts from Baghdad? The tearing down of the Saddam statue (a totally staged event but doesn't it make your heart just well with patriotic pride?).

    Sorry to say, but my definition of "supporting the troops" doesn't include sending them off to die based on a lie. And volunteering to join the CF doesn't mean that our solders should have to blindly follow any order given. Our military is composed of professionals, not draftees. Treat them as such. They are there to defend us, our allies and innocents we tell them to protect. They are not there to be wasted in trumped up adventurism. They are also not expected to lay down their lives for our chance to gain access to lucrative rebuilding contracts. How well do you think WW 2 would have gone if the reason given was "Think of the money to be made under the Marshall Plan"?.

    Sending our troops into war based on a lie should be considered High Treason, committing an act of war against Canada. We're basically sending our troops to be killed. That's an attack on this country, it's military and it's citizens.

  62. #62

    Default

    The Iraq War. Manufactured by Halliburton. Orchestrated by Dick Cheney and George Bush.

    There were no significant weapons of mass destruction. They knew that before they started the fight.

    If Saddam had any WMD's, he got them from this man shaking his hand.


    Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein


    President Obama Acknowledges Torture, Upsets Liz Cheney
    By ANDREW ROSENTHAL AUGUST 4, 2014 1:39 PMAugust 4, 2014 3:53 pm 131 Comments
    Nothing annoys a Cheney like anyone of prominence talking about the disasters that Vice President Dick Cheney helped engineer during the last Bush administration. So it wasn’t surprising that his daughter, Liz, was outraged when President Obama talked about the torture of prisoners after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

    On Friday, Mr. Obama commented briefly on the unreleased Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation policies. After the attacks, he said, “we did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.”

    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...ype=blogs&_r=0
    If the Bush administration wanted to get at the people who funded the 9/11 attacks, they would have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. IMHO
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 06-08-2014 at 06:58 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  63. #63
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Not to confuse the US role in Iraq with Iraq being "good":

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4304853.stm

    They did have a history of using chemical weapons (WMD's if you will).

  64. #64

    Default

    But, voices were drowned out, reputations tarnished with cries of "traitor" or "collaborator". But the sounds of the fife and drum and wrapping of our leaders in the flag proved irresistible.
    I'd disagree, they got away with it using corrupt intelligence that they could flash before the cameras and had both political bodies (congress and the house) and a population that had 9/11 fresh in their mind. Revenge was very much a motive to most, not the American Flag.

    Saddam did not help matters with his history of chasing complex weapons system (the Buhl gun is an example as is the SCUD missile systems) or his gassing of his own people.

    So while I did not support the action taken, within the context of the time, I can see how people were led down the path.

    Sorry to say, but my definition of "supporting the troops" doesn't include sending them off to die based on a lie. And volunteering to join the CF doesn't mean that our solders should have to blindly follow any order given. Our military is composed of professionals, not draftees. Treat them as such. They are there to defend us, our allies and innocents we tell them to protect. They are not there to be wasted in trumped up adventurism. They are also not expected to lay down their lives for our chance to gain access to lucrative rebuilding contracts.
    Something, for the most part we agree on.

    That said:
    And volunteering to join the CF doesn't mean that our solders should have to blindly follow any order given.
    Actually they are required to follow any "lawful" (military law definition) order given.
    There is no debate, the Commander's decision is not up for critique by all, it is not a democracy. Nor should it be, there is a reason for chain of command...it works and in times of emergency or combat it (usually) saves lives.

    Lastly:
    How well do you think WW 2 would have gone if the reason given was "Think of the money to be made under the Marshall Plan"?
    I get your point but, considering the "Marshall plan" wasn't developed until late war/post war and the goal was nation building by helping those countries ravaged by war pull themselves up (not send over contractors) and the fact it worked makes it not a great example.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Not to confuse the US role in Iraq with Iraq being "good":

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4304853.stm

    They did have a history of using chemical weapons (WMD's if you will).
    Excuse me?

    Do you realize that the United States supplied vast quantities of arms including chemical weapons to Iraq to allow them to wage war against Iran?


    Author Barry M. Lando says, by 1987, the U.S. military was so invested in the correct outcome, that "officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency dispatched to Baghdad were actually planning day-by-day strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi Air Force." Iraq used this data to target Iranian positions with chemical weapons, says ambassador Galbraith.

    According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."
    United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war

    At the same time the United States was also supplying Iran with weapons to counter attacks from Iraq.

    Iran-Contra Affair
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

    Military - Industrial Complex Lesson: How to profit from war 101
    a) Supply both belligerents with weapons to allow them to keep fighting for years.
    b) When things go wrong, create diversionary conflict and disavow any involvement in "a" above
    c) Lather, rinse, repeat
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 06-08-2014 at 08:07 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  66. #66
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    US maybe supplied but Iraq collected and used... Again, not to confuse US role with Iraq at the time being governed by one nasty regime.

  67. #67
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    incidentally, if you believe that US supplied them with chemical and other such weapons, then you should also believe the US when they claimed Iraq had such weapons. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you know. The fact that none were found ≠ there were none. Maybe the US just took them back or maybe some freedom fighter somewhere is polishing them as we speak or maybe N Korea bought them or...
    Last edited by grish; 06-08-2014 at 08:29 AM.

  68. #68
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Someone (Tom?, Gemini?) suggested something along the lines of much of the western world growing jaded to the point war and killing is barely distinguishable from a game. I agree, somewhat. There's still a lot of people that care.
    I think it's total crap and a completely unfounded claim. People today are FAR more sensitive about casualties and the cost of war, whether it be their own soldiers or the citizens of another country. Individual battles in WW1 and 2 could result in tens of thousands of casualties with little affect on the populace's support of the war effort, yet the 158 soldiers killed in Afghanistan was enough to cause the Canadian public to turn against the continued presence of soldiers in the country.

    Similarly, compare the US casualties in Vietnam and Iraq. Vietnam was an order of magnitude higher, yet the Iraq war was arguably every bit as unpopular with the public once the casualties started to mount as Vietnam was. Roughly 47,000 dead soldiers in Vietnam vs. 4,500 in Iraq.

    It's completely asinine to claim that people today are more desensitized to war or more likely to tolerate large numbers of casualties.

    It's also completely false to claim that more people are dying in wars in modern times than they did in the past: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/s...lent-conflict/

    From 1950 to 2007, there was an average of 148,000 global battlefield deaths per year; from 2008 to 2012, the average was 28,000.
    Deaths due to war/conflict are declining rapidly around the globe, with some very unfortunate exceptions. Things are getting better, not worse. And that's not even adjusting for population. Another chart from that link:



    Source: http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress...1485.jpg?w=696
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 06-08-2014 at 08:39 AM.

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    If the Bush administration wanted to get at the people who funded the 9/11 attacks, they would have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. IMHO
    Who are you arguing with, did anyone here say they supported the IRAQ war? It's fine if you want to argue certain politicians committed war crimes, although in fairness, Sadam was far from a saint either, as bad as the US water boarding was, the rapes, torture and gas attacks his family and cohorts inflicted were on another scale. I didn't agree with the Iraq war, but that US and UK politicians got it wrong is something they have to live with, and the people who voted for them.

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    incidentally, if you believe that US supplied them with chemical and other such weapons, then you should also believe the US when they claimed Iraq had such weapons. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you know. The fact that none were found ≠ there were none. Maybe the US just took them back or maybe some freedom fighter somewhere is polishing them as we speak or maybe N Korea bought them or...

    It is not a question if I believe that the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, it was a well known fact and the Bush administration deliberately mislead the American people about the sources of those chemicals.

    Lots of countries have chemical weapons including Israel. Just because a country has chemical weapons is not a pretext for invasion. Yes Iraq has used them against Iran and the US government allowed the Iraqis to use chemical weapons against the Kurds but there was a very limited stockpile, most of which was destroyed in the first Iraq War in 1991 and no real threat that Saddam would use them against US friendlies in 2003.

    The false claims by the Bush administration in 2003 to the UN were a blatant lie.

    Powell came under fire for his role in building the case for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In a press statement on February 24, 2001, he had said that sanctions against Iraq had prevented the development of any weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein. As was the case in the days leading up to the Persian Gulf War, Powell was initially opposed to a forcible overthrow of Saddam, preferring to continue a policy of containment. However, Powell eventually agreed to go along with the Bush administration's determination to remove Saddam. He had often clashed with others in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September 11 attacks, an insight supported by testimony by former terrorism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 Commission. The main concession Powell wanted before he would offer his full support for the Iraq War was the involvement of the international community in the invasion, as opposed to a unilateral approach. He was also successful in persuading Bush to take the case of Iraq to the United Nations, and in moderating other initiatives. Powell was placed at the forefront of this diplomatic campaign.

    Powell's chief role was to garner international support for a multi-national coalition to mount the invasion. To this end, Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, to argue in favor of military action. Citing numerous anonymous Iraqi defectors, Powell asserted that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Powell also stated that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

    Most observers praised Powell's oratorical skills. However, Britain's Channel 4 News reported soon afterwards that a UK intelligence dossier that Powell had referred to as a "fine paper" during his presentation had been based on old material and plagiarized an essay by American graduate student Ibrahim al-Marashi. A 2004 report by the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the evidence that Powell offered to support the allegation that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was inaccurate.

    In an interview with Charlie Rose, Powell contended that prior to his UN presentation, he had merely four days to review the data concerning WMD in Iraq.

    A Senate report on intelligence failures would later detail the intense debate that went on behind the scenes on what to include in Powell's speech. State Department analysts had found dozens of factual problems in drafts of the speech. Some of the claims were taken out, but others were left in, such as claims based on the yellowcake forgery. The administration came under fire for having acted on faulty intelligence, particularly what was single-sourced to the informant known as Curveball. Powell later recounted how Vice President Dick Cheney had joked with him before he gave the speech, telling him, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Powell's longtime aide-de-camp and Chief of Staff from 1989–2003, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too."

    In September 2005, Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

    Wilkerson said that he inadvertently participated in a hoax on the American people in preparing Powell's erroneous testimony before the United Nations Security Council. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uclear_weapons
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    If the Bush administration wanted to get at the people who funded the 9/11 attacks, they would have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. IMHO
    Who are you arguing with, did anyone here say they supported the IRAQ war? It's fine if you want to argue certain politicians committed war crimes, although in fairness, Sadam was far from a saint either, as bad as the US water boarding was, the rapes, torture and gas attacks his family and cohorts inflicted were on another scale. I didn't agree with the Iraq war, but that US and UK politicians got it wrong is something they have to live with, and the people who voted for them.
    So in this thread "State of the world, state sponsored terror, terror and war in general" you want to limit the discussion?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  72. #72

    Default

    Marcel

    Re: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/s...lent-conflict/

    While I have not had a chance to read thoroughly and digest yet (and yes I plan to) I do have some concerns about the statistics used to arrive at the conclusions (as do many of those that commented on the link).

    The following quotes from the link tend to show the author is being selective about "what" is considered in the deaths and injuries involved in the violent conflicts of our time.

    I deleted deaths from institutional oppression, failed states and despots from this chart
    The graph does not include ethnic or other conflicts where neither warring party was a state, nor does it include cases of “one-sided” violence such as genocide.
    By removing these losses of life, such as the ethnic cleansing in some the conflicts of the 90s (and the author has noted they are not included as I read it) it changes the numbers (and quite possibly the author's conclusions) appreciably.

    While I don't look forward to it I am going to re read the article and the information in it thoroughly before drawing a final conclusion.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  73. #73

    Default

    ^I posted earlier an article about whether Canada could go to war again. Afghanistan wasn't a war, the 158 soldiers we lost would have been a lucky day in the trenches and wasn't an awful lot higher than the regular death rate for our soldiers from training accidents, illness and similar. It doesn't come close to comparing to our road death toll. In 2008 more people died in Alberta work place accidents. People have lost perspective, it's sad these soldiers died, but it's sad those Alberta workers died to, at least the soldiers are remembered each year.
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-08-2014 at 10:18 AM.

  74. #74
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks
    While I don't look forward to it I am going to re read the article and the information in it thoroughly before drawing a final conclusion.
    Those are probably fair points. I didn't go really in to depth reviewing and checking the sources. I only spent a minute or two trying to find some sort of historical record of deaths to conflict, and wasn't able to find a whole lot of really well sourced information on the topic. But I suspect that conflict deaths are like many other things were common or popular perception is completely skewed by the 24 hours news cycle that's developed over the past several decades.

    Whether it's war, murder, child abduction/abuse/rape, poverty, disease or any of a huge number of other subjects, the popular belief is that many of those things are getting worse, when the reality is that almost across the board they're improving in most parts of the world (but again, with some extremely unfortunate exceptions).

    I highly recommend reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Culture-Fe.../dp/B003R4ZBR8

    It's probably getting fairly out of date now, I originally read it 10+ years ago, but Glassner does a fantastic job showing how many, many popularly perceived things like the dangers of tainted/poisoned Halloween candy are based on nothing more than irrational fear and shoddy media reporting. For example, it turns out that there are almost zero recorded cases of true candy tampering/poisoning during Halloween. Most of the cases turned out to be parents hiding the truth that their kids got in to their heroin stash or something similar.

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

    I quite strongly feel that the case is much the same with war. It seems/feels like there's more of it going on these days because we hear about it almost constantly. But when you stop and think of how many wars were going on in South America, Asia, and Africa in the 50's through the 80's compared to the last couple decades, it seems to me that things are going in the right direction, albeit not fast enough.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 06-08-2014 at 10:20 AM.

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I posted earlier an article about whether Canada could go to war again. Afghanistan wasn't a war, the 158 soldiers we lost would have been a lucky day in the trenches and wasn't an awful lot higher than the regular death rate for our soldiers from training accidents, illness and similar. It doesn't come close to comparing to our road death toll. In 2008 more people died in Alberta work place accidents. People have lost perspective, it's sad these soldiers died, but it's sad those Alberta workers died to, at least the soldiers are remembered each year.
    Heartless comments from you. Just tell a vet that Afghanistan wasn't a war and I would be surprised that you keep any teeth. I don't think any of the 158 soldiers that were killed or the many more permanently scarred and disabled or their families would think you have any right to make such foolish statements.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  76. #76

    Default

    Fair enough Marcel

    But I am going to disagree with your point...
    I quite strongly feel that the case is much the same with war.
    at least until I have the time to finish wading through the data in the link (and some other)

    It seems/feels like there's more of it going on these days because we hear about it almost constantly.
    I'll agree with a caveat, we are also selective about what we consider war (which is why I tend to look more at violent conflict as a term). It may seem minutiae but it changes the perception, unfortunately not the human costs.

    But when you stop and think of how many wars were going on in South America, Asia, and Africa in the 50's through the 80's compared to the last couple decades
    I guess I disagree...we may have reduced the wars by changing what we call them, but the rise of terrorism and it's ability to breach borders without a face has changed how conflicts happen and who they affect...

    it seems to me that things are going in the right direction, albeit not fast enough.
    Well at this point I can't agree, but really and desperately hope you are right.

    The reach of conflicts today and the facelessness of terrorism tends to make me think more and worse is yet to come...but I would very much prefer to wrong.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I posted earlier an article about whether Canada could go to war again. Afghanistan wasn't a war, the 158 soldiers we lost would have been a lucky day in the trenches and wasn't an awful lot higher than the regular death rate for our soldiers from training accidents, illness and similar. It doesn't come close to comparing to our road death toll. In 2008 more people died in Alberta work place accidents. People have lost perspective, it's sad these soldiers died, but it's sad those Alberta workers died to, at least the soldiers are remembered each year.
    Heartless comments from you. Just tell a vet that Afghanistan wasn't a war and I would be surprised that you keep any teeth. I don't think any of the 158 soldiers that were killed or the many more permanently scarred and disabled or their families would think you have any right to make such foolish statements.
    Moa
    In 2008 more people died in Alberta work place accidents. People have lost perspective, it's sad these soldiers died, but it's sad those Alberta workers died to, at least the soldiers are remembered each year.
    I think it's sad you don't get the difference.

    Not to minimize any loss of life or diminish what that loss means to family/friends/loved ones regardless of where or how it happened.

    But a workplace accident is that...an accident and the loss is irreplaceable and felt for a lifetime.

    An employer that knowingly sends a worker into a dangerous/life threatening situation can be subject to criminal prosecution and civil action.

    But a soldier killed in the line of duty is not an accident, it is a known and calculated (by others) risk that a member of the military accepts as part of their service to Canada. Not an accident.

    As a country, through our elected officials, we choose to send military personnel into the line of fire knowing there will be casualties.

    With no repercussions to those making the decisions on our behalf and it is an accepted part of service to their country.

    That is the difference...

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    US maybe supplied but Iraq collected and used... Again, not to confuse US role with Iraq at the time being governed by one nasty regime.
    The US not only supplied them, they also provided intelligence on the locations of Iranian troops so they could be targeted.

    In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
    The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...he_gassed_iran
    Seeing as the Americans helped stage the coup that overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government and then reinstalled the Shah, all to keep the Iranian oil industry from being nationalized (i.e. - brought back from being in American and British hands), along with all the other dirty tricks, lies, and general hostile behaviour, is it any wonder that Iran is no friend of the west?

  79. #79

    Default

    Note the dates of the published articles

    Our last occupation
    Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all before in Iraq
    Saturday 19 April 2003
    Partial quotes
    Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job.
    At the time of the Arab revolt in Palestine in the late 1930s, Air Commodore Harris, as he then was, declared that "the only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand, and sooner or later it will have to be applied". As in 1921, so in 2003.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts


    Oil in Iraq: The Byzantine Beginnings
    Part I: The Quest for Oil
    April 25, 2003
    https://www.globalpolicy.org/compone...185/40548.html

    Partial quotes

    Among the foreign powers the British, seeing Iraq as a gateway to their Indian colony and oil as lifeblood for their Imperial Navy, were most aggressive in their pursuits in Mesopotamia, aspiring to gain physical control of the oil region. Winston Churchill, soon after he became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, declared oil to be of paramount importance for the supremacy of the Imperial Navy. Churchill was educated about the virtues of oil by none other than Marcus Samuel, the founder of Shell.
    In 1913 Churchill sent an expeditionary team to the Persian Gulf headed by Admiral Slade to investigate oil possibilities in the region. More or less coincident with Admiral Slade expedition, Britain signed a secret agreement with the sheikh of Kuwait who, while ostensibly pledging allegiance to the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul, promised exclusive oil rights to the British. Kuwait became a British protectorate in November 1914.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  80. #80
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Britain using a heavy hand as a colonial power? Shocking! Never happened before.

  81. #81
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    incidentally, if you believe that US supplied them with chemical and other such weapons, then you should also believe the US when they claimed Iraq had such weapons. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you know. The fact that none were found ≠ there were none. Maybe the US just took them back or maybe some freedom fighter somewhere is polishing them as we speak or maybe N Korea bought them or...

    It is not a question if I believe that the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, it was a well known fact and the Bush administration deliberately mislead the American people about the sources of those chemicals.
    I guess "rhetorical question" is the source of confusion...

    Basically, the US knew what it gave to Iraq, so there is no question Iraq had the weapons and had a history of using them. That wasn't in question. None were "found"... but that doesn't mean that none were there or that none were found... Maybe just not found by the right people.

    Iraq's leadership was murderous regardless of the role of the USA. I am just trying to maintain a level of awareness that regardless of the role of the US government or of Britain's leadership or of Canada's... Hussain and his party were far from saints.

  82. #82

    Default

    You really think that after occupying Iraq for 10 years that they are still hiding WMD's??? And that if they found any significant WMD's they would have kept it quiet?

    You can bet if they found a ounce of plutonium or stockpiles of chemical weapons that the right winger's would have not put the news on the front page of every newspaper or Fox and the GOP would be impeaching Obama for covering up evidence of WMD's, in defense of their lord and savior, George Bush?

    Just where do you come up with this stuff?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Britain using a heavy hand as a colonial power? Shocking! Never happened before.
    Better yet...in keeping with the context of the eras involved.

    Can you name a colonial power of the 18th, 19th, early 20th century that did not use a heavy hand???

    The list of those that did is long and to include a few that displayed heavy handedness in one form or another:
    France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain...
    any need to go farther?

    Doesn't make it right in the light of today in any way...simply a fact of the times.

    Again lots to go around

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  84. #84

    Default

    I don't believe anyone is proclaiming Saddam as a saint but he's a devil of out (i.e. the West's) making. The Americans knew exactly who they were dealing with and not only turned a blind wye to his abuses, they encouraged him, as long as he kept his targets as either Iran or his own people.

    You can't give WMD's to a tyrant and then claim that you're shocked that he used them as you intended him to use them.

    As for the WMD's not being found by "the right people", that sounds suspiciously like the discredited idea that they were spirited away before the war. He had them, he used them, they weren't thee any more.

  85. #85
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    You really think that after occupying Iraq for 10 years that they are still hiding WMD's??? And that if they found any significant WMD's they would have kept it quiet?

    You can bet if they found a ounce of plutonium or stockpiles of chemical weapons that the right winger's would have not put the news on the front page of every newspaper or Fox and the GOP would be impeaching Obama for covering up evidence of WMD's, in defense of their lord and savior, George Bush?

    Just where do you come up with this stuff?
    I think you are missing your fight with the windmills, sir...

    the search for WMD's in iraq was pretex for 2003 war... You brought it up... What 10 years? What exactly are you arguing?

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Britain using a heavy hand as a colonial power? Shocking! Never happened before.
    Better yet...in keeping with the context of the eras involved.

    Can you name a colonial power of the 18th, 19th, early 20th century that did not use a heavy hand???

    The list of those that did is long and to include a few that displayed heavy handedness in one form or another:
    France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain...
    any need to go farther?

    Doesn't make it right in the light of today in any way...simply a fact of the times.

    Again lots to go around

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    The rest of the world seems to have learned (or are still learning) the dangers of colonialism except the Americans. They've got more fingers in other people's pies than the rest of the world combined.

    Just look at the number of overseas bases and troop placements for a clue. They're continually going in where they're not wanted, upsetting other people's apple carts and then claiming that other countries have to stand by themselves while claiming no responsibility for the results for themselves. They're like the man who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan.

    And these are the people that Stephen Harper wants us to emulate and follow into every conflict they're involved in.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 06-08-2014 at 12:49 PM.

  87. #87
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I don't believe anyone is proclaiming Saddam as a saint but he's a devil of out (i.e. the West's) making. The Americans knew exactly who they were dealing with and not only turned a blind wye to his abuses, they encouraged him, as long as he kept his targets as either Iran or his own people.

    You can't give WMD's to a tyrant and then claim that you're shocked that he used them as you intended him to use them.

    As for the WMD's not being found by "the right people", that sounds suspiciously like the discredited idea that they were spirited away before the war. He had them, he used them, they weren't thee any more.

    just trying to keep the broader perspective... there is often an attempt to select the right from the wrong... the current enemy it seems is the US foreign policy. The US diplomacy in general has a subtlety of an elephant trying to tip-toe on a grand piano. But in focusing solely on the US, people seem to discount Saddam as one that was "made" by US. US didn't make him, perhaps enabled him but certainly didn't create the guy or his willingness to use force.

    More broad context of the world: can you name the bad guys in the Syria vs the rebels war? I know the good guys are the unaffiliated people who are caught in the cross-fire, but who are the bad guys here?

  88. #88

    Default

    One thing about some terrorist organizations is their ability to get people to strap explosives to themselves then walk into crowded places and detonate them. No matter how much vigilance a country can take they cannot search everyone in a market place, airport terminal, bus, sports event or any other public function. Terrorists can virtually have hundreds if not thousands of human bomb carriers ready to be deployed. Just get some schmucks to buy into the ideology and you can wreak havoc.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  89. #89

    Default

    Again...while against the Iraq war in 2003

    There are things that make you wonder what was there and what was found but not disclosed.

    Because Iraq never buried any weapons did they?

    Just combat aircraft, leaving obsolete types on the airbases to bomb

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force
    On the brink of the US led invasion, Saddam Hussein disregarded his air force's wishes to defend the country's airspace against coalition aircraft and ordered the bulk of his fighters disassembled or buried.
    For pictures check this website
    http://xpda.com/junkmail/junk155/buriedJets.htm

    For the effectiveness of the aircraft shown being uncovered on the link note this quote from the above wiki link
    The MiG-25 force (NATO reporting name 'Foxbat') recorded the first Iraqi air-to-air kill during the war. A MIG-25PDS, piloted by Lt. Zuhair Dawood of the 84th Fighter Squadron, shot down an U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornet from VFA-81 on the first night of the war.
    The second air-air kill was recorded by a pilot named Jameel Sayhood on January nineteenth. Flying a MIG-29 he shot down a Royal Air Force Tornado GR.1A with R-60 missiles.
    In another incident, an Iraqi Foxbat-E eluded eight USAF F-15C Eagles, firing three missiles at a USAF EF-111 electronic warfare aircraft, forcing them to abort their mission. In yet another incident, two MiG-25's approached a pair of F-15 Eagles, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then out-ran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of ten air-to-air missiles were fired at the Foxbats; none of which could reach them.
    So not exactly tinker toys and once again showing there is lots of blame to spread around...Mig 29, still a potent fighter and what country produces those?

    Wonder what other stockpiles were found and acquired by others?

    Still doesn't make me change my position on the war itself, but does beg questions.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    I think you are missing your fight with the windmills, sir...

    the search for WMD's in iraq was pretex for 2003 war... You brought it up... What 10 years? What exactly are you arguing?
    Actually you brought up WMD's and chemical weapons, not me.

    Your post I believe
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Not to confuse the US role in Iraq with Iraq being "good":

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4304853.stm

    They did have a history of using chemical weapons (WMD's if you will).
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post

    The rest of the world seems to have learned (or are still learning) the dangers of colonialism except the Americans.
    Ummm

    You do realize the last time I checked Canada has military personnel on Peace Keeping (making) missions and humanitarian missions in around 35+ countries around the world?

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  92. #92

    Default

    Russian colonialism is still going strong, China is next.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  93. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post

    The rest of the world seems to have learned (or are still learning) the dangers of colonialism except the Americans.
    Ummm

    You do realize the last time I checked Canada has military personnel on Peace Keeping (making) missions and humanitarian missions in around 35+ countries around the world?

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    There's a difference between peace keeping & humanitarian missions and military interventions (i.e. wars). I'd think that you'd be aware of that. Also, how many permanent bases do the CF have worldwide? Apples and oranges Thomas.

    The Americans still have the bug guns pointed at the heads of Japan & Germany, more than 60 years after the fact. Just a gentle reminder, of course.

  94. #94
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    I think you are missing your fight with the windmills, sir...

    the search for WMD's in iraq was pretex for 2003 war... You brought it up... What 10 years? What exactly are you arguing?
    Actually you brought up WMD's and chemical weapons, not me.

    Your post I believe
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Not to confuse the US role in Iraq with Iraq being "good":

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4304853.stm

    They did have a history of using chemical weapons (WMD's if you will).
    how but one just before that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The Iraq War. Manufactured by Halliburton. Orchestrated by Dick Cheney and George Bush.

    There were no significant weapons of mass destruction. They knew that before they started the fight.

    If Saddam had any WMD's, he got them from this man shaking his hand.


    Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein

  95. #95

    Default

    You know why I know there never be a time where wars don't happen?

    ...because even in a thread about not having war, the sabre rattling is incredible...
    Onward and upward

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post

    The rest of the world seems to have learned (or are still learning) the dangers of colonialism except the Americans.
    Ummm

    You do realize the last time I checked Canada has military personnel on Peace Keeping (making) missions and humanitarian missions in around 35+ countries around the world?

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    There's a difference between peace keeping & humanitarian missions and military interventions (i.e. wars). I'd think that you'd be aware of that. Also, how many permanent bases do the CF have worldwide? Apples and oranges Thomas.
    Gee I wonder if that is the perspective that the factions in those countries we are posted in take.

    I clearly know the difference by our mandate, but as what some would consider uninvited guests in someone elses land I wonder if they see us simply as meddling in their affaris?

    Perspective...changes views wery easily.

    The Americans still have the bug guns pointed at the heads of Japan & Germany, more than 60 years after the fact. Just a gentle reminder, of course.
    But now they are more economic than anything else, a different game again.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  97. #97
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Someone (Tom?, Gemini?) suggested something along the lines of much of the western world growing jaded to the point war and killing is barely distinguishable from a game. I agree, somewhat. There's still a lot of people that care.
    I think it's total crap and a completely unfounded claim. People today are FAR more sensitive about casualties and the cost of war, whether it be their own soldiers or the citizens of another country. Individual battles in WW1 and 2 could result in tens of thousands of casualties with little affect on the populace's support of the war effort, yet the 158 soldiers killed in Afghanistan was enough to cause the Canadian public to turn against the continued presence of soldiers in the country.

    ...
    It's completely asinine to claim that people today are more desensitized to war or more likely to tolerate large numbers of casualties.
    Asinine is a strong word. Did you miss the part where I said I think people still care?

    For one thing, I wasn't around for those other wars, so it's hard for me to say, but I doubt people didn't care as much as they do now. And there was no doubt an equal amount of insensitivity and desensitivity for those close to the war.

    You seem to be confusing awareness with sensitivity. The visceral images of war common and accessible to most of the planet these days were not so easily available to those back home in WWII. Governments are finding it very difficult to restrict and control information. Now we're all much closer to the war, in close to real time.

    These same kinds of visceral images are mirrored by similar images in movies, television, and gaming, among many others. There is little question as to the desensitization of the horrors of war when those kinds of images are used in kids video games.

    Some desensitization may be a natural human response - a way to keep living and stay sane in a world gone crazy.

    No-one is arguing there is more death in this war than in WWII. It doesn't make me feel better somehow. Some people, including me, are at a loss for why we keep repeating the same mistakes, and refusing to learn from the past.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  98. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    I think you are missing your fight with the windmills, sir...

    the search for WMD's in iraq was pretex for 2003 war... You brought it up... What 10 years? What exactly are you arguing?
    Actually you brought up WMD's and chemical weapons, not me.

    Your post I believe
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Not to confuse the US role in Iraq with Iraq being "good":

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4304853.stm

    They did have a history of using chemical weapons (WMD's if you will).
    how but one just before that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The Iraq War. Manufactured by Halliburton. Orchestrated by Dick Cheney and George Bush.

    There were no significant weapons of mass destruction. They knew that before they started the fight.

    If Saddam had any WMD's, he got them from this man shaking his hand.


    Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein
    Actually on post #56 kkozoriz did. You brought up the chemical version. No matter, it is all relevant on the current state of the world and the mess we call the Middle East.

    Have a read of the book, Oil, Power and Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda – May 1, 2003 by Larry Everest

    It shows an oily line to the Iraq war and the current situation 100 years later.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post

    The rest of the world seems to have learned (or are still learning) the dangers of colonialism except the Americans.
    Ummm

    You do realize the last time I checked Canada has military personnel on Peace Keeping (making) missions and humanitarian missions in around 35+ countries around the world?

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    There's a difference between peace keeping & humanitarian missions and military interventions (i.e. wars). I'd think that you'd be aware of that. Also, how many permanent bases do the CF have worldwide? Apples and oranges Thomas.
    Gee I wonder if that is the perspective that the factions in those countries we are posted in take.

    I clearly know the difference by our mandate, but as what some would consider uninvited guests in someone elses land I wonder if they see us simply as meddling in their affaris?

    Perspective...changes views wery easily.

    The Americans still have the bug guns pointed at the heads of Japan & Germany, more than 60 years after the fact. Just a gentle reminder, of course.
    But now they are more economic than anything else, a different game again.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    For the most part, peacekeeping forces and humanitarian missions are there with the approval of the inhabitants. Otherwise we have a situation like the Balkans where we try to bomb them back to peace (if not pieces).

    Economic forces are a work sure. But having those troops and equipment stationed there is also a reminder that America is the big stick in the world these days. Generally speaking, the Americans don't do peacekeeping or humanitarian missions. If they're there, then you can bet they believe there's something in it for them.

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I posted earlier an article about whether Canada could go to war again. Afghanistan wasn't a war, the 158 soldiers we lost would have been a lucky day in the trenches and wasn't an awful lot higher than the regular death rate for our soldiers from training accidents, illness and similar. It doesn't come close to comparing to our road death toll. In 2008 more people died in Alberta work place accidents. People have lost perspective, it's sad these soldiers died, but it's sad those Alberta workers died to, at least the soldiers are remembered each year.
    Heartless comments from you. Just tell a vet that Afghanistan wasn't a war and I would be surprised that you keep any teeth. I don't think any of the 158 soldiers that were killed or the many more permanently scarred and disabled or their families would think you have any right to make such foolish statements.
    I never said it wasn't sad our soldiers died, but the sacrifice we as a society made was minimal at best, not even close to comparable to the world wars, have a read of e CBC article I posted. I am proud how our soldiers fought, and I think it's good Canada lives up to its responsibilities to NATO. The Liberals chose to go into Afghanistan, I expect future governments will choose to take part in other actions, I hope the death toll is similarly low or lower, but like it or not PRT, we all lead short lives, and when choosing to be a professional soldier, you accept the risks that entails, just like someone choosing to be a rig pig.

Page 1 of 18 1234511 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •