Canada's Shame

[Instal]

Originally Posted by majorwoody10

canadian troops have always aquitted themselves well and im glad they have always been allies for the last century or so ...why is the canadian public going hippie on their gallant military tradition ? we had a bout of it after the vietnam era ,but after grenada and gulf one its been pretty positive ,. is canadian public dissafection connected to our own post viet nam miasma ?

In a way I think you are right. After Nam in the States it was primarily the youth that was anti military. I think the same thing is happening here but not for the same reason. The general attitude in this country is stay out of the problems of the world and let them sort it out themselves. History dictates that this never works but there are no conflicts fresh enough in the minds of Canadians to remind them that we MUST intervene where there is evil. We MUST come to the aid of the opressed or everyone suffers. When things are good at home people tend to put blinders on and not want to face the ugliness in the world. It is then that evil has the opportunity to strike. The price of freedom is never paid in full and it astounds me that every generation has to relearn that lesson.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Instal

History dictates that this never works but there are no conflicts fresh enough in the minds of Canadians to remind them that we MUST intervene where there is evil. We MUST come to the aid of the opressed or everyone suffers. When things are good at home people tend to put blinders on and not want to face the ugliness in the world. It is then that evil has the opportunity to strike. The price of freedom is never paid in full and it astounds me that every generation has to relearn that lesson.

Very well put, Instal.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Instal

The price of freedom is never paid in full and it astounds me that every generation has to relearn that lesson.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. -Thomas Jefferson

I think the main problem for Canadian hippies is the location of the conflict... I mean, it's in Afghanistan. Afghanistan = Middle East. An in the head of many hippies, Middle East = Petrol.

So, in their head, Middle East + War = War for petrol.

Also, they are sooooooooo concerned with "human lives" that they would do anything to preserve theirs. They would rather bend to an upcoming invader than fight him. Brave men don't have a long life, but cowards lives old.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Maestro

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. -Thomas Jefferson

I think the main problem for Canadian hippies is the location of the conflict... I mean, it's in Afghanistan. Afghanistan = Middle East. An in the head of many hippies, Middle East = Petrol.

So, in their head, Middle East + War = War for petrol.

Also, they are sooooooooo concerned with "human lives" that they would do anything to preserve theirs. They would rather bend to an upcoming invader than fight him. Brave men don't have a long life, but cowards lives old.

One thing that utterly baffles me is this:
Since they are great "humanitarians" you would think that they would be at least a little bit flustered that someone like Mr Hussein conducted state sponsored kidnapping, rape, murder, etc on thousands. For some reason, those crimes don't seem to matter to them.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by mkloby

One thing that utterly baffles me is this:
Since they are great "humanitarians" you would think that they would be at least a little bit flustered that someone like Mr Hussein conducted state sponsored kidnapping, rape, murder, etc on thousands. For some reason, those crimes don't seem to matter to them.

And the you guys weren't to concerned about Rwanda or Bosnia til the havoc was over

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

And the you guys weren't to concerned about Rwanda or Bosnia til the havoc was over

So your mentality would be if you don't stop ALL the tragedy, why stop ANY? Sounds like a good line of thinking to me. It is those people that think in such a way that will let the world go to hell in a handbasket as long as their needs are fulfilled.

And who exactly is this group of "you guys" that you are making this accusation of basically choosing which human rights issues matter and which do not - if I'm understanding your comment correctly.

[Maestro]

I think he is pointing at you (Americans), who would rather fight where there is worthy natural ressources (so you can make money (i.e. petrol)) rather that fight somewhere where there is no natural ressources worth your attention but peoples in need.

(Note : this is not my opinion, but rather what I understood from pb's post.)

Like I received an official warning for one of my posts in this thread, I'll let you the pleasure to slam him.

Have fun, Marine.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay if that is the case. PB please explain to me how we are making money off of the conflict in Iraq. Hell our economy is at an all time low compared to recent history.

Also how did we make money off of Afganistan?

How did we make money off of Kosovo?

How did we make money off of Bosnia?

I would like a detailed report for each conflict.

[pbfoot]

What Mkloby said that if we were such great humanitarians how come we were not in Iraq and I in return asked how come the US wasn't in Sarejevo when it was being starved and shelled the longest siege in modern history. The fact is we are fighting in Afghanistan in along with the US Brits Dutch and Aussies . Maestro brought up the money issue not I

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

What Mkloby said that if we were such great humanitarians how come we were not in Iraq and I in return asked how come the US wasn't in Sarejevo when it was being starved and shelled the longest siege in modern history. The fact is we are fighting in Afghanistan in along with the US Brits Dutch and Aussies . Maestro brought up the money issue not I

Before you ask why the US was not there, ask yourself why the rest of the world was not there first.

If you wish to be technical the rest of the world did not act until the US Acted when they led the NATO airstrikes.

In fact my old company was the first international helicopters to cross the border into Bosnia.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

What Mkloby said that if we were such great humanitarians how come we were not in Iraq and I in return asked how come the US wasn't in Sarejevo when it was being starved and shelled the longest siege in modern history. The fact is we are fighting in Afghanistan in along with the US Brits Dutch and Aussies . Maestro brought up the money issue not I

Pb - please let me clarify. I did not mean Canadians. I was referring to those, which generally lie on the far left. Those, that usually come out in force and protest ANY war on the grounds that it is inhumane or unlawful. Those who would rather see a ruler slaughter his own people, even with poisonous gas, rather than intervene with the use of force.

Another avenue these individuals often take is past US policy. Whether the US supported Iraq in the past is not the issue. That cannot be changed. Nobody is saying that US policy in the past was always the best course. Whether the US responded more slowly, too late, or maybe not at all in another conflict is not the issue either.

I think that anyone can recognize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the US to intervene at the forefront and stop all tragedy in the world. Economically speaking, it is just not possible (not to mention the plethora of other reasons as to why it wouldn't be possible). I can't see the use of the argument that the US didn't respond properly to this conflict or that atrocity in the best way, so therefore the US intervening in any is illegitimate, or not only that but it is self serving.

I know you didn't bring up the economic aspect of Iraq, Pb. There are other considerations in Iraq other than simply removing the past regime from power. As far as the US "making money" or "blood for oil" claims, the US has spent a tremendous amount of resources in Iraq. Some don't let this interfere with their belief that it is profit-motive driven, and use the military-industrial complex theory to counter that, or possibly American companies that are involved in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Everyone should be able to see that the US is not gaining ecnomically from her involvement in Iraq, and should look to other reasons as to why the US got involved.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Before you ask why the US was not there, ask yourself why the rest of the world was not there first.

If you wish to be technical the rest of the world did not act until the US Acted when they led the NATO airstrikes.

In fact my old company was the first international helicopters to cross the border into Bosnia.

I think you're right on. Many other countries use the claim of violation of international law, national sovereignty, or war is inhumane - but I just don't think that makes sense to a rational being. Why is it permissible to allow ruthless bloodshed and slaughter to take place? Any nation with a culture establish in Christianity should be appalled at that notion - although religion throughout much of the world is being attacked for being evil and the root cause of war and conflict - it should be the driving force behind preventing such tragedies as ethnic cleansing, oppression, and tyranny.

Perhaps many nations have their own economic reasons as to not get involved in these international affairs. Maybe they do not wish to shoulder the massive costs associated with launching such an operation. Perhaps they have trade agreements in place with the nation in question, or are tied economically to the status quo.

You can believe the argument that they oppose involvement on ideological grounds alone. A sucker is born every minute.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Basically this is how I see it mkloby.

If the US gets involved anywhere in the the world for what ever reason the rest of the world screams "Evil USA" and "USA can not keep there fingers to themselves or mind there own buisness, they are just war wongering cowboys!"

If the US does not get involved and we mind our own business the rest of the world complains that we dont get involved and say we are not doing eneogh to help the world.

The US is damned if it does and damned if it does not.

[pbfoot]

The moral of this to me is never comment on a dumb subject which is what this whole thread is

[plan_D]

Britain doesn't have a go, only the stupid British do. In fact, Britain has been fighting alongside the U.S in most conflicts and have been fighting in conflicts without the U.S.

It's alright, yanks, we've got your back as long as there's still some sense left in Britain.