The 'evil empire' is next door

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
I have to take issue with you on these statements.

First, seems to me that the "socially minded nation of pacifists and peacekeepers" needs to take a refresher lesson in history. It won't take long. You need look no further than Neville Chamberlain to see the fruits of such policies.

While your example of Neville Chamberlain is indeed valid, pre-emptive striking as a doctrine has not always gone well by any means. What about the French who pre-emptively struck the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian war to be routed and sent back to Paris? The Japanese pre-emptively stuck the USA countering US deterrance policy in Asia in 1940. The result was two devastating nuclear weapons. Could you imagine if either the USA or USSR had struck eachother to counter eachother strategic positions? The result is unthinkable. Pre-emption is not an end all and be all strategy. Did it work in Iraq? The future will tell us, but until then, the jury is still out.

Second, had Canada been attacked by muslim idiots, Americans would most likely be helping you find and eliminate those responsible instead of engaging in whiney nit-picking about the methods used. Further, we would respect your right to do what is necessary to defend your country.

Canada has not been attacked by Muslims. Our ally, being you, has. There was a clear and present link with Afghanistan and we were there right beside you from day one and we still are. For some reason, the point alway seems lost.

Finally, may I point out that it was, in fact, the USA who was attacked. That gives us the right to do whatever is necessary to assure it won't happen again. If that bothers the delicate sensibilities of some Canadians - tough shit. [/B]

Agreed, the USA was attacked, but that does not mean the USA now determines the foreign policies of its allies. That there is the real bone of contention.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by insein
The problem is in your line of thinking. You feel that Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with North America when it clearly had ties to many terrorist organizations including Al Queda. The same orgs that have cells in the US and Canada. The same Cells that use Canada's lax immigration laws to sneak into the US and cause damage.

The child thinks they know best when the parent makes a decision that contradicts them. Quite often the Parent is right.

But the parent isn't always right.

I'll reiterate again, that Canadians have no doubt on Afghanistan by any stretch. In fact, most of the world agrees with the USA 100% there that Afghanistan supported terrorists. The evidence was clear and we were with you guys like a dirty shirt.

Iraq, however, is not so clear by any means. Because of that lack of clarity, the casius belli given by the US to invade Iraq was not convincing enough to garner the same international support. In addition, while Afghanistan war was widely recognized as necessary in most of the Muslim world, the lack of clear evidence is would seem to be driving more popular support to the very terrorists that the US want to weed out.

 

[Merlin1047]

disregard.

anti-virus program giving me a fit.

not going to re-type the whole thing

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Merlin1047

Here's a thought on terrorism for all you libs, Canadian or otherwise - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you can't get up the guts to help fight the problem, at least do us the courtesy of getting the hell out of the way. [/B]

But I think you're missing our point and I do say this with upmost respect. Canadians do not feel that the new solution brought forth by the US administration is helping the problem. In fact, I don't think that it would be unreasonable to say that in the short term, the US actions have increased support of terrorism in the middle east. In the long term, the US may very well be correct, but I have my doubts, along with other Canadians.

If we are proven to be incorrect, then our turn will change accordingly and history will vindicate you and chastize us. If not, well, the reverse will be true.

We know terrorism is a threat, make no mistake about it. However, to quote a popular Canadian saying:
"You don't put out a fire by throwing gas on the flames."

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
But the parent isn't always right.

I'll reiterate again, that Canadians have no doubt on Afghanistan by any stretch. In fact, most of the world agrees with the USA 100% there that Afghanistan supported terrorists. The evidence was clear and we were with you guys like a dirty shirt.

Iraq, however, is not so clear by any means. Because of that lack of clarity, the casius belli given by the US to invade Iraq was not convincing enough to garner the same international support. In addition, while Afghanistan war was widely recognized as necessary in most of the Muslim world, the lack of clear evidence is would seem to be driving more popular support to the very terrorists that the US want to weed out.

Iraq is clear and if it wasn't for this being an election year would have been even more clear from the start. Iraq has been in lead with terrorist organizations for decades. Al Queda being one of them. There is plenty of evidence out there to support this. Saddam had WMD's. Every country prior to 2002 had said so plain and simple. Due to the tenuous nature of an election, one party has made every effort to mislead the American People into believing Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WOT.

I don't blame you for being fooled Issac. I Blame the liberal Media for misleading the public as to the real threat that Iraq truly was all for the sake of removing George Bush from office.

 

[dilloduck]

Ok--we are used to the criticism---What do Candians think the answer to terrorism IS ? ( Don't wanna hear what will not work)

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
But I think you're missing our point and I do say this with upmost respect. Canadians do not feel that the new solution brought forth by the US administration is helping the problem. In fact, I don't think that it would be unreasonable to say that in the short term, the US actions have increased support of terrorism in the middle east. In the long term, the US may very well be correct, but I have my doubts, along with other Canadians.

If we are proven to be incorrect, then our turn will change accordingly and history will vindicate you and chastize us. If not, well, the reverse will be true.

We know terrorism is a threat, make no mistake about it. However, to quote a popular Canadian saying:
"You don't put out a fire by throwing gas on the flames."

I would think that this is more like throwing water onto a fire. At first it shoots back violently and creates steam that appears to be dangerous. After a few minutes though, the steam disapates and the fire is out. I feel that this is how the WOT is going.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by insein
Iraq is clear and if it wasn't for this being an election year would have been even more clear from the start. Iraq has been in lead with terrorist organizations for decades. Al Queda being one of them. There is plenty of evidence out there to support this. Saddam had WMD's. Every country prior to 2002 had said so plain and simple. Due to the tenuous nature of an election, one party has made every effort to mislead the American People into believing Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WOT.

I don't blame you for being fooled Issac. I Blame the liberal Media for misleading the public as to the real threat that Iraq truly was all for the sake of removing George Bush from office.

Perhaps I am being fooled. However, remember the 9/11 commission was then also fooled. The weapons inspectors were also fooled and a great many other people were too. There has also not been any real smoking guy to speak of.

Logically I have to assume that either we in the West are being manipulated quite cleverly by Saddam or some conspiratist liberal, or that there is indeed real confusion surrounding the mattter.

Perhaps it is this confusion that is of the greatest concern to Canadians.

Though culturally quite similar, the US and Canada have very striking differences in certain views. One of which is war. The difference is best shown on how we celebrate our holiday to respect soldiers who faught in war. Perhaps this is the best way to give you in better insight into Canadian ideology.

In the US, I believe you have Memorial Day and Veterens day which is a time of thanks and celebration of the contribution your soldiers present, past, living and deceased. The days, from what I've seen on TV has parades, bands and children waving American flags in celebration of their accomplisments and sacrifices. Though there are no doubt solemn times, the general tone seems to be upbeat.

In Canada, we have Remembrance Day, while takes on a similar tone to a mass funeral. The day is solemn, rarely cheerful and marked by a reflection not so much on the accomplishment, but the price paid. The two mottos that are repeated on this day is "Lest We Forget" and "Never Again". These monicers were brought forth after there absolutely devasting cost to Canada after World War I in name of King and country and have ingrained themselves in much of the collective Canadian psyche.

So where am I going with this? It all boils down to perspective. An American, assumingly conservative for sake of argument, looking into Canada may see a nation that can't seem to reconcile the "What If's?" and perhaps of appeasment and cowardice.

However, in Canada you must understand the reluctance to go to war is great. For if we go to war, we must say, irrecovably, that the price for our soldiers may have to pay with their lives is worth it. There just must be some certainty. Certainty that simply was not brought forth.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Ok--we are used to the criticism---What do Candians think the answer to terrorism IS ? ( Don't wanna hear what will not work)

A fair question.

Frankly, I think most Canadians thought you were doing an excellent job right up until Iraq. The attacks on your country garned worldwide disgust at terrorism and terrorist states. The Afghanistan war brought together many, often opposing, nations together in the WOT.

To put it bluntly, the US was wining the war on public relations both in the leaders and people of the world. Even in many Arab countries the disgust was present in the same degree.

I can't speak for all Canadians, and there is no doubt that how to solve terrorism is widely disagreed upon even in Canada, certainly now. However, if I was calling the shots, I would have pressured the government of moderate and friendly (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, etc) with financial and perhaps politcal incentives to root terrorist cells from their host nations. This aid would be a multi-national collaboration.

By increasing aid significantly, you're dangling the carrot for those countries to reform. Add in clauses about democracy and I believe you have a strong market force driven way to improve security.

In addition, swing the Sword of Damocles over the terrorists by offering them free assistance for coalition troops and intelligence to root out radicals.

Could be perhaps idealistic, but the US's greatest strength is not its military, but in its economic clout. Having the world still on the US side, many other developped countries would presumably join the cause. Think how much money was spent on the War in Iraq. Offering just a piece of that to those countries harbouring terrorism, and I'd imagine reform the way the US wants would happen mighty quickly. Money talks.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
A fair question.

Frankly, I think most Canadians thought you were doing an excellent job right up until Iraq. The attacks on your country garned worldwide disgust at terrorism and terrorist states. The Afghanistan war brought together many, often opposing, nations together in the WOT.

To put it bluntly, the US was wining the war on public relations both in the leaders and people of the world. Even in many Arab countries the disgust was present in the same degree.

I can't speak for all Canadians, and there is no doubt that how to solve terrorism is widely disagreed upon even in Canada, certainly now. However, if I was calling the shots, I would have pressured the government of moderate and friendly (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, etc) with financial and perhaps politcal incentives to root terrorist cells from their host nations. This aid would be a multi-national collaboration.

By increasing aid significantly, you're dangling the carrot for those countries to reform. Add in clauses about democracy and I believe you have a strong market force driven way to improve security.

In addition, swing the Sword of Damocles over the terrorists by offering them free assistance for coalition troops and intelligence to root out radicals.

Could be perhaps idealistic, but the US's greatest strength is not its military, but in its economic clout. Having the world still on the US side, many other developped countries would presumably join the cause. Think how much money was spent on the War in Iraq. Offering just a piece of that to those countries harbouring terrorism, and I'd imagine reform the way the US wants would happen mighty quickly. Money talks.

We have done alot of what you have just said. It goes unnoticed because of the aformentioned Liberal Media Bias multiplied in an election year. The US has contacted these nations and have spoken to them directly on the incentives of helping the US root out the terrorists. Not everyone has listened. But some have.

Libya has acknowledged to the world that they have a Nuclear program and will begin disarming it for fear of US sanctions. Pakistan has somewhat caved into the threat of sanctions as well. Saudi Arabian government has always been helpful even if the people have not. Jordan has helped thwart a major terrorist plot to kill 80,000 of their countrymen. They've also pledged to send troops to Iraq within the next year.

These are the things that don't make it to the publics eyes and ears. The media is a dangerous thing when it decides to slant the view of the world towards one side of the spectrum.

 

[MrMarbles]

There is plenty of evidence out there to support this. Saddam had WMD's. Every country prior to 2002 had said so plain and simple.

Prior, to 9/11, your own gov't said that Iraq was not a threat, and did not have WMD's.

Ok--we are used to the criticism---What do Candians think the answer to terrorism IS ? ( Don't wanna hear what will not work)

Tough. Try not to create an atmosphere that will spread animosity towards you, e.g. agrressive foreign policy all about the money. Just remember, viloence begets violence.

Apparently hindsight is less than 20-20 in your case specifically and in the case of many Canadians as well as liberal idiots here in the US. If hindsight was as good as you claim, then why is it that SO MANY OF YOU LIBERALS ARE TOTALLY UNABLE TO LEARN ANYTHING FROM IT?????????

What haven't we learnt. I've studied history, alot, to much maybe. And the actions in Iraq, do not resemble WW2 Germany. Germany started a world war in the name of self-preservation. Iraq was contained and under control.

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I don't think that it would be unreasonable to say that in the short term, the US actions have increased support of terrorism in the middle east. In the long term, the US may very well be correct, but I have my doubts, along with other Canadians.

If we are proven to be incorrect, then our turn will change accordingly and history will vindicate you and chastize us. If not, well, the reverse will be true.

Well it's fine for Canadians to wait and see who history will vindicate as long as it is Americans who are getting blown up while we're waiting around to see who is right.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
Well it's fine for Canadians to wait and see who history will vindicate as long as it is Americans who are getting blown up while we're waiting around to see who is right.

No shi*! That's sounds very honest though, same thing France is doing. Gnaw at the heels of those carrying the water, while the grasshoppers play!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
Well it's fine for Canadians to wait and see who history will vindicate as long as it is Americans who are getting blown up while we're waiting around to see who is right.

With all due respect, I think you need to re-read what I wrote. This isn't some, "Hey let's screw over the USA.". This is "Hey I think what the USA is doing is only going to make things worse for them and us, we want no part.".

This isn't indifference as you wrongly suggest and frankly, your suggestion that Canada is doing this to put the US in a worse-off position is very offensive and a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

 

[dilloduck]

The "aggressive" foreign policy to which you refer is simply America defending democracy when all diplomtic resources have failed. As has been already pointed out ad nauseum, America DID attempt diplomacy around the world . Don't try to tell me different unless you can prove it. stop telling these lies. Right or not, America COULD have nuked Aghanistan AND Iraq and ANY OTHER country that suggested that America was an evil enemy. Lesson here is DON'T FUCK WITH OUR COUNTRY. We are not the wimps that some administrations have led you to believe. Sit there and watch if you like . Lucky for you we are fighting enemies that hate your way of life too.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
With all due respect, I think you need to re-read what I wrote. This isn't some, "Hey let's screw over the USA.". This is "Hey I think what the USA is doing is only going to make things worse for them and us, we want no part.".

This isn't indifference as you wrongly suggest and frankly, your suggestion that Canada is doing this to put the US in a worse-off position is very offensive and a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

A twist on an old saying:

Those that can, do. Those that can't, criticize.
IMHO.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Kathianne
A twist on an old saying:

Those that can, do. Those that can't, criticize.
IMHO.

I'm sure that will be of great comfort to those Canadian soldiers and aid workers in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I'm sure that will be of great comfort to those Canadian soldiers and aid workers in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan.

We were talking about Iraq. Geez. You're the one bashing what we're doing. You claim it's 'concern' personally with the crack of, 'If we're wrong...'

If you feel that way, just do so, don't keep posting same thing, getting it back, and then taking offense.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Kathianne
We were talking about Iraq. Geez. You're the one bashing what we're doing. You claim it's 'concern' personally with the crack of, 'If we're wrong...'

If you feel that way, just do so, don't keep posting same thing, getting it back, and then taking offense.

I'm positing Kathianne, in regards to the original topic and indeed it is all linked. I'm not taking offense to posters, my ego is hardly bruised. I'm not bashing what you're doing anymore than you bashing what we're not doing. I am trying to help you understand the prevailing Canadian position. If people do not wish to listen, then I question the point of having a forum of debate on Canada.

To sum up:

Iraq and Afghanistan are apart of the War or Terror for the United States. Canada joined to War in Afghanistan as well as increasing security ties with the United States. Canada did not enter the War or Iraq because of a lack of a presented evidence and concerns over future threats as a result of the war.

When Canada refused to enter and opposed the War or Iraq the US administration indirectly implied we were reneging our position of the War or Terror. This sentiment has passed to a great deal of the US populus supporting the administration and the media. As such, there is this feeling of "You're either with us or against us." and Canada popularly is seen more and more on the later.

In this case, neither is true. It is that black or white notion that is seen as, if not arrogant, than certainly regressive to the previous actions already taken on the War on Terror. This percieved slight has caused an increase in anti-americanism in Canada and with other traditional allies.

Hopefully, in time the rift will heal as it always does.

 

[Annie]

Issac, I will admit to being annoyed and for that reason lashing out, I apologize. :hail: Now, I hear what you're saying, but I disagree with what the administration and Canada, through the elected leader at that time did. The administration's problems had little to do with your stance in Iraq, moreso the Cretin factor, I know the spelling.

The reason the citizenry here, to some degree, have a problem with Canada-which is NOWHERE near the problem with France-has to do with security issues and a fake superiority on the part of some Canadian articles in papers, more than Canadians as a group.