I found that interesting considering that Canada has not declared war, and could not, without being in direct violation of international law. Neither has the Taliban declared war on Canada. I have yet to hear from the UN speaking out in condemnation against Canada's participation as well.
What has been going on is the final stages. The Afghanistan government has asked the Canadian forces to "move in and establish democracy to the region" by weeding out the remaining insurgents. This IS a mission not a war. Will the Canadians shoot to kill? Yes. That is part of the mission of removing terrorists from the region. The Taliban are not interested in leaving, or negotiating for that matter, so they will be pushed out at the request of the Afghanistan government.
Yet we have the "left" convincing themselves that because we are in a region at the request of the home country this still constitutes a war. They, along with the NDP and Liberals, are NOW calling for parlimentary debate regarding Canada's involvment as a nation. Just a little bit too freakin' late for that now, is it not? That debate should have taken place long before we ever agreed to send troops in the first place. You do not send troops to a volatile part of the world for the purpose of establishing freedom and democracy just so you can pull them out half way thru because they now will have to fire shot's at those who would do everything in their power to continue the oppression of basic fundamental human rights and freedoms.
The other part of the "left's" paranoid delusions of grandeur stems from the fact that, as far as they are concerned, the Americans are calling the shot's and are behind Canada's further involment with the current situation. Funny, Canada stood it's ground against the Americans when it said no to the Iraq war but yes to helping root out terrorism in Afghanistan. Canada made it's own choice's and decision's (definitve and distinct from the Americans) when it came to the war on terrorism. Canadian's do have a mind of their own but the "left" does not want you to believe that.
One thing that I will agree with the "left" on is that neither of us want's to see all the violence continue. But freedom has never been free, it has always come with a price. If we allow terrorist factions such as the Taliban to continue to flourish they will overun us all. They are non-negotiable. They do not fight fair. They hide in the hills and dress as civilians drawing fire towards the innocent. They have no honor on the battlefield and are cowardly in their attacks on innocent women and children just to "make their voice's heard". In short, they do not play nice.
I, for one, am proud of our solidiers for the job they are doing over there with what little they have due to Liberal mutilation of our military. I thank them for defending basic human rights and freedoms. I support my Canadian troops in these times.
The "left" on the other hand would rather condemn them now. Of course what do you expect? Whether it be American democrats or Canadian Liberals/NDPers, these people are often clueless as to what they really do support or not support. If the Canadians stood back while human rights were violated by these types of regimes the "left" would be screaming for them to get in there and do something. When we do decide to step in they now want diplomacy with terrorists.
Yet one of the more important factors the "left" has blinded itself to is that in Canada, because of our brave men and women in uniform, they have the RIGHT to protest the mission/war on terror in the first place. Without our soldiers defending our freedoms, that freedom to protest would not exist. Instead everytime one of these self righteous "loony lefties" stood up to protest their government they would be shot dead in the street for defying and dishonoring their government. Don't believe me? Just ask the young students of China who have lost their lives for disagreeing with the government of China.
Thank you to our Canadian troops for "Standing on guard for thee"
Until next time...
**On a side side note. Because I , obviously disagreed with the "left's" view on a number of different site's, I expectedly was called "different" kind of names. (Your not allowed to disagree with them) But I must say on some of the more civil sites I visited I was referred to as "right, rightie, conservative, neoconservative, and one colleague at work called me a pseudo conservative"
So here is what I am looking for, as my header state's "You tell me" what catergory you think I fall under(not that I really care) I am doing this out of plain curiosity. Here is how it will play out:
You can ask me any question that you feel would pertain to getting inside my head on my political views (social, foreign, economic, justice, healthcare, etc.) and I will answer honestly and to the best of my ability. If you require furhter explanation I will do so. I am not looking to dispute my views. We can do that later. For now analyse my answers and when it looks like the question period is over, after your review of all answers, you make the determination as to what catergory you feel I fit in and why.
I hope some of you will take the time to participate otherwise I will decide for myself and then you will disagree with me and we will have ended up nowhere.
PS: Of course feel free to agree/disagree with the above entry as well.
29 comments:
TIO,
I think you could best be described not by a phrase but by what you are...
human, Christian, son, brother, father, Canadian, neighbor.
My question...
If I am against the death penalty and I'm against abortion how do you categorize me?
Q
Thanks Q.
With regards to your question obviously you are against death (where the decision is in the hands of another human being) regardless of which form it comes in. Compassionate comes to mind.
But if you you were looking for that political "Label" your definetly more to the "right". However, interestingly enough, here in Canada much of the "left" is also opposed to abortion. Which makes one wonder how it ever became legal?
Abortion is a tricky subject for me... maybe one day I'll relate why...
I think the best (smartest, most interesting, most knowledgeable) people don't have a 'label' that can be attached to them. I think if we agree 100% of the time with an ideology (left, right, centrist, doesn't matter) then we aren't really saying or thinking anything. This is something I've recently been thinking about quite a lot. I WAS a proud left winger. Now, I wouldn't touch that label with a ten foot pole. Why? Because it carries a certain expectation of what I should think/say/act - I'm not interested. I prefer to make my choices based on what I actually THINK, not what someone tells me to think. And so do you. I don't think you're RIGHT wing, I think you're a christian, and a lot of your views come from your religious background. That's a good thing, because REAL Christians are compassionate and caring... something much of the left claims to be but isn't.
Thank you Mandora for your input. And well said I might add.
Your answer was well thought out and one that I agree with 100% (DANG!!! I just agreed again).**Shut up twilight zone music**
Although I never would have mentioned it before( that I was not convinced you were as "left" as portrayed) you are cabable of rationale discussion, are reasonable in your considerations of other's input (whether you agree with them or not). Something I almost never see in the "left" and if I am fair even the "right". You have views that lean "left" just like I have mine that lean to the "right" but as you said:
" I think if we agree 100% of the time with an ideology (left, right, centrist, doesn't matter) then we aren't really saying or thinking anything."
This was an excellent statement and very true. When it comes to human ideologies I would say they all come, originally, with the best of intentions. However being that we are a falliable bunch they end up flawed along the way and do not work for "this" group but work better for "that" group.
As long as I adhere to God's principles I do not need to "ponder" what I like and don't like about His "ideology" (Lack of better term). When it comes to Him either you follow 100% or you do not.(That is why the United Church should pack it up!) He wants all of us not a portion. I we cannot "cherrypick" the scriptures for what part we agree with and disagree with. So even in my political decisions I ask my self "would God support this or that?" I then go to His policy manual (Bible) to confirm.
I do not know if there will be other contributors at this point but I must say I have been blessed thru this. The most important thing in my life is to be recognised first, foremost, and above all as a Christian.If my words/actions have even left Yourself and Q with that impression then I must be doing something "right" (oops, there is that word again LOL) :)
Your orignal comment:
"Abortion is a tricky subject for me"
This subject can be like cancer. Everybody seems to know someone who has had one. I have been struggling with this because I have been considering a posting on it and yet avoiding it because of the sensitivity of it.
I do not refer to the political sensitivity (i.e. a woman's "right" to choose)because I will dispute the whole "Right to choose" in a heart beat, but for those reader's who may have gone thru one and live with regret about their decision. I would not want them to feel all condemened and shamed. I'l have to see. I would like to argue it strictly from a "rights" perspective.
Now I have a question for you Q:
Here is one area we differ slightly on. I am, obviously, against abortion but I am not against the death penalty. I do believe that the taking of an innocent life constitues murder. As required by God's laws and ordinances the murderer should be put to death.
The argument I often hear is "are we not then murdering the culprit as well?" Using two wrongs to make a right. A valid question/arguement. My answer to this is no.
If murder defined is to take an innocent life then it cannot be murder when the individual(Perpatrator)is "guilty" not "innocent". I.E. You have not taken an innocent life in this circumstance. Instead you have made the punishment fit the crime.
Now, I will concede, that the death penalty can some times end up taking the life of an individual we find out down the road was actually innocent of the accused crime. This is where it get's tricky.
So I would state that "in principle" I would support the death peanalty. However we would need to come up with an absolute fireproof method of determining "guilt".
Any thoughts on this Q?
neither conservative or liberal just logical.
TIO,
Your position seems very logical. But I'm not unbiased because it was my position not too many years ago.
I changed when I realized that I cannot inject someone with a lethal drug and I won't ask people to do my dirty work, so I decided to be against the death penalty.
It seemed illogical to be against killing someone that is guilty without doubt (say you hve multiple witnesses or it is televised, etc.), and allowing someone that is innocent without doubt (unborn child) to be killed. I have 3 sisters and 2 daughters so I am ver concerned about woman being allowed to have control over their bodies and lives, but we are talking about an innocent life...
That is how I came to my flip-flop.
My father was a very successful lawyer who was able to retire at the age of 41. He defended many people including people that he knew were guilty.
I asked him how it felt to defend someone that is convicted and goes to jail or death chamber (Texas). He actually never lost a case but he responded like this...
- everyone he defended had committed multiple felonies
- he knew of some felons that were convicted of a crime that they did not commit. He believed however that they were not innocent, that they had almost certainly committed multiple crimes.
- nobody is caught the first time they commit a crime, most steal dozens of cars before the get caught, or rob many homes before getting caught, etc.
He was against the death penalty as well but his reason was because he did not think it right for a government to take a life since it is so easy for a government to be corrupted.
He favored having 2 jails in the middle of the most desolate US desert. The jails would have walls 1 mile high, 1 mile thick, etc. (in other words you can't escape). The jails would have nothing but dirt and rock inside. No buildings, no food, no anything except other people convicted. The first time you commit a felony they drop you a jail for 3 days. After 3 days they take you and tell you "the next time we will assume that you don't want to get along with our society. If you are convicted again we will put you in the other jail and we will not take you out. It is your choice. Good luck starting your own society."
His feeling was that he wasn't killing them. They were killing themselves...
q
Arrrhhhgggg,
TIO, I wrote the one about the father that was a lawyer.
Q
Q:
That was some heavy food for thought.
You have given me something to think about. And I know I will, I just don't know if I would reconsider my position.
But I sure am impressed with your Father's idea. Now that is original! Too brilliant for a government to even consider.
TIO,
Bro, I'm not trying to change your position on any topic.
I'm not exactly a do gooder, there is another side to me that must be taken into account. If someone messes with my wife, mother, sisters, or daughters. I will shoot their ass off and cram it down their throat.
Then I will accept God's judgement with fear and trepidation.
Oh yeah, forgot to sign again.
Q
Q:
"Bro, I'm not trying to change your position on any topic."
I know you were not. You just provided me with a different outlook. One that I took into consideration.
TIO,
Next "get inside your head" question:
Should everybody have a vote? If not, what is the conceptual basis for determining whether or not someone should have a vote?
Q
Q:
That was an easy one. No.
For example, in Canada, (Lord have mercy on our stupidity) we allow prison inmates to vote. Naturally they vote for Liberals because Liberals will give them conditional sentences for some of the most brutal crimes.
If you committ a crime worthy of jail time you forfeit any and all "rights" to the outside world until your debt has been repaid to society.
The criminal never took into consideration the "rights" of the individual they violated so neither should their rights be considered. Jail time was designed for deterrence not coddling and pampering to the criminal.
Another area is age restrictions. Right now you must be 18 years of age to vote in Canada. Before the Liberals were punted from office they wanted to lower the voting age to 16!!!
Talk about being desperate for votes.I am of the opinion that the voting age should be raised to 20 years of age. I find 18 years old is still to young with teenagers just coming out of high school and, at that point, still retaining the "party" mode of thinking. Can they think for themselves at this point? Yes. But I am not convinced they have any real grasp of the "issues" at hand except that which their hippie teacher still trapped in the 60's indoctrinated them with.
They need to go out into the real world and decide for themselves what they actually do and do not support in a governing body.
So at this point those are the only two groups of people who should not be able to vote. Prision inmates and those under the age of 20.
I missed one. Immigrants. I think an immigrant should be able to vote in this country but not immediately.
Often the governement in power will try to manipulate their vote by reminding them that they allowed them into the country.
Immigrants should be residing in the country for a minium of 5 years before being eligble to vote.
This allows them an oppurtunity to see how government functions and operates in our country rather then being influenced the minute they step off the plane into a new country.
I agree on principle that teenagers shouldn't be able to vote because they might not take it seriously, blah blah blah, but how many teenagers do you know that would actually go out of their way TO vote, unless they were very politically minded....
Also, right now, immigrants can't vote until they have citizenship. Atleast that's my understanding since I have a close friend who isn't allowed to vote yet, and she's eagerly waiting on citizenship so that she can. It takes 3 years before she can apply for citizenship.
TIO,
It was an easy question. It wasn't supposed to be hard. It was supposed to reveal the real you (my interpretation of your game rules).
You're answer was good. I think you missed the single biggest consideration. I think it crosses all boundaries...
Under the original US government - Confederation - the intent of the founders was for 86% of all citizens (male adults) to vote.
When the new constitution was written the premis for voting rights changed. The new premis is that you don't get a vote unless you have some economic skin in the game. Under the new rules you had to be a male adult with property.
The thinking is this... There will always a smaller number of "haves" and a larger numbe of "have nots". The "have nots" will use their vote to redistribute the wealth. That in turn is a disincentive for being productive and profitable.
Since the founding fathers died US sufferage has changed significantly twice. "Doing what is right/fair" was not the motive in either case. After the US civil war the Northern majority extended the right to vote to Blacks (not because it is right) because they were afraid of the South reorganizing. They thought that extending the vote to Blacks would help control the South. How kind.
The second major change was extending the vote to women. THe rational was not to "be fair" to women. The controlling party - The Democratic Party - thought that if they extended the vote to women they would vote for Democrats - they tried to buy the female vote - how sweet.
So, what has changed in the US since the rules for sufferage have been expanded. Well,it could be coincidence but social security, welfare, and the IRS were all instituted by the Democratic Party and serve the purpose of redistributing the wealth in the US. Seems the founders were right again.
Q
Q:
(sigh!) Democrats/Liberals...they really are sweet people. Just ask one and they'll tell you so. :)
Mandora:
" but how many teenagers do you know that would actually go out of their way TO vote, unless they were very politically minded...."
A very accurate observation. I had this thought in mind as I wrote my previous statement. I concentrated more on the absolute stupdity of a government that would "do anything" to cling to power by getting kid's involved in the political process.
And as you say, just how many are actually politically minded. On average I would guess about 10 per school and they are all on the debate teams at school.
" right now, immigrants can't vote until they have citizenship"
Right. I should have made myself more clear. I was referring to 5 years AFTER they have already recieved their citizenship.
1)
The whole left-right dichotomy is much to simplistic. If one wanted to do it with only two sides, one ought to use a statist-libertarian metric. The current metric goes as follows:
Left - against "economic" liberties, for "civil" liberties
Centrist - someone who is either stupid, indecisive, or without principles
Right - for "economic" liberties, against "civil" liberties
It just seems broken to me. How can you separate "economic" and "civil" liberties? All actions have "objects". If you don't have objects you can't very well act upon them. And if you can't act upon them then what good are they?
Of course nobody could ever expect politicians to be logically consistent.
2)
One should always hesitate before proposing to disenfranchise certain groups. The only consistent way to do it is everyone or no one.
Very insightful response. One that got me thinking a little more indepth.
You make some very strong points. I got a good laugh out of your centerist description. You nailed that one with accuracy.
I would also agree with your analysis of both the left and rights economic "liberties".
When it came to "civil liberties" I would not say I disagree but that I see it from a different perception.
Both the left and the right are for "civil liberties". Where the water gets muddied is that they have opposing views on just what is a civil liberty and what is not. This is based on the "Party's" policy which is influenced on the moral standard they hold.
One example of this (going back to the homosexual debate) would be that of same sex marriage. The "left" would argue that the "right" wants to surpress civil liberties against the gay community by not allowing them to marry one another.
The "right" would argue that is not the case. But by allowing same sex marriage to take place the civil liberties of religious rights and freedoms will be directly affected by calling it marriage. Society would be better served recognising it as a civil union as opposed to a marriage. (I speak with first hand knowledge as I am already expeirencing this very type of "persecution". I have had my license to marry other's revoked from me for refusing to marry homosexuals based on my Christian convictions)
My point being here is that both side's are in favour of civil liberties. They just have differing views. What a "lefty" may see as a civil liberty a "righty" may see as a civil violation. You see where I am going with this?
You said:
"Of course nobody could ever expect politicians to be logically consistent."
Considering the planet is run by falliable human beings I fully endorse this statement. Which is why I believe in a Theocracy. Not run by man but by God. Man would turn it into a dictatorship. But with God at the helm you will never deal with inconsistencies.
But that time has not arrived yet so I will stick with human democracy.
"One should always hesitate before proposing to disenfranchise certain groups. The only consistent way to do it is everyone or no one."
The only way for this to work is for everyone to be of "like mind". That is quite simply not the case. But I agree with you statement in principle.
Thanks for your input Nog, hope to see you come by again.
Being "human" can only excuse someone for so much. I understand that nobody will ever be perfectly logical but at least people could try.
Let's take abortion as an example for logical analysis. The "religious right" wants to throw all sorts of things in the way of people who want to have abortions. If abortion is wrong it needs to be wrong for a reason. The only reason that anyone can come up with is "it's a human". I shall take this assertion to its logical conclusion.
If something is human, killing it (under normal circumstances) would constitute murder. If a fetus is a human, a fetus conceived in a 13 year old girl who was raped by her father is no less human. The only person who I have ever heard of who has come out and stated that the crippled should be killed was Adolph Hitler. Thus, if one asserts that fetuses are humans and people shouldn't be allowed to kill cripled persons, she would have to say that if the girl had an abortion, it would constitute murder (if she was logically consistent).
If one doesn't assert that fetuses are human, any objection he made against it would be an equivalent to objecting to someone's dietary choices.
Another of my favorties is trade. Everyone gripes about "trade deficits". They say that exporting is good and importing is bad (in that they want a postive inflow of a commodity called "currency"). The only consistent policies that someone could have on the issue are "ban all imports, allow all exports", "ban all exports, allow all imports", "ban all trade", or "allow all trade". It is utterly ludicrous to say that we ought to "protect" our farm industry but not our energy industry from foreign competition. People who "pick and choose" simply don't base their positions on principles.
Nog,
Totally in agreement.
I can respect any opinion from complete socialist lefty to extreme radical facist right if they have stuck to one set of guiding principles and can walk me through the logical argument of their line of thinking.
Very clear discussion Nog.
Nog, your comment above sounds like justification for murder not logical reasoning. Your arguement is that because a 13 year old girl was raped, it should no longer be considered a fetus. The raper (father in this case should be put in jail to rot) but fetus is still a human no matter what the circumstance. How is it the fetus's fault that it was conceived in the most perverted way? You're absolutely right that it should be murder if aborted. This is always the arguement of the prochoicers. Please tell me what percentage of all abortions fall under this circumstance. Ridiculous.
Nog:
Again some very insightful things for one to consider. But If I may break it down:
"I understand that nobody will ever be perfectly logical but at least people could try."
Regardless of which side of any issue one is on both side's will lay claim to the fact they are in fact "trying" to find resolve. But as I said in my previous comment that a party's ideology is influenced by their particular "moral code of ethics". Whatever is argued as "religious right" can also be argued as "left wing lunancy".
Let's look at your "abortion comparison:
" The "religious right" wants to throw all sorts of things in the way of people who want to have abortions."
Actually it is not entirely the "religious right". Many Liberals (Canadian one's anyway) are very opposed to it as well. This issue crosses ethical guidelines for many regardless of political ideologies.
"If abortion is wrong it needs to be wrong for a reason. The only reason that anyone can come up with is "it's a human"."
Is that alone not reason enough? The actual terminology is that it is "Life". There are those that try and argue against this in order to justify the removal of "life" from the womb. Yet if science recognises a single cell as a "living organism" then guess what the female egg becomes once it has been fertilised?
A single cell living organism already in the stages of multiplying. The other thing I always found overlooked in this was looking at sperm under the microscope and seeing how "millions" of these little guys move up the fallopian tube in a race to the egg in which there will only be one winner. I came to the conclusion that this was yet another confirmation of life at the beginning because sperm cannot "wiggle" when it is dead. There is obvious life happening there.
"If something is human, killing it (under normal circumstances) would constitute murder."
When is murder in any form to even be considered "normal"?
"If a fetus is a human, a fetus conceived in a 13 year old girl who was raped by her father is no less human."
Right! I agree.
"The only person who I have ever heard of who has come out and stated that the crippled should be killed was Adolph Hitler."
I have questioned whether Adolph was even human himself or Satan incarnate.
"Thus, if one asserts that fetuses are humans and people shouldn't be allowed to kill cripled persons, she would have to say that if the girl had an abortion, it would constitute murder (if she was logically consistent)."
Right again. If the laws were consistent (that being life in the womb is recognised for what it is, that being a human baby is no different then the lame/crippled) then yes abortion would be recognised as murder. In fact with the amount of abortions performed on a yearly basis in North America alone it would/should be referred to as a mass genocide.
Your overall statement was very provocative. First off regarding rape, as a man how could I possibly comprehend what this is like for a woman to expeirence this? There is such a violation of their sexuality and a cheap feeling of being an abused object for some "pig's" sexual lust.
I felt the best the thing to do to gain any insight on this matter was ...to ask a woman. So I asked the most sincere woman I know, my wife. Now I thought I knew my wife well enough that she would agree with an abortion regarding an unwanted pregnacy due to rape even though we are both Christians and abortion violates our belief in the sanctity of life.
I was astounded by what she said. I put the question to her in the form of "If it were you...". She did not answer right away but took some time for some real indepth "soul searching" (By the way, my wife used to be very pro choice) When she finally responded she said this (to the best of my memory):
"As horrible as the act of rape is to a woman what often get's lost in the confusion of this type of vulgar violation is that the baby isn't just (his) it is also mine! Regardless of how it came about. There is still a baby in me that is depending on me for it's very life. Therefore I could not deny it's right to life. If the child was to burdensome a reminder of the terrible tradjedy then I could always put the child up for adoption. But making the decision to end it's life over something that was not his/her's fault is something I could not live with."
I think the most important factor to bear in mind when the attitudes of the "religious Right" are brought into it is they have a solid arguement statistically speaking. In Canada, our government funded health agency tells us that 98% of abortions are :
"Not medically necessary."
In other words they are taxpayer funded procedures of convience. A woman wants to sexually engage without being responsible for the consequences. This act of convience also makes one "callous" towards our own species and I think that has become self evident in today's world. If we can carelessly toss aside life in the womb...what difference does it make if we do it outside the womb?
I am out of time for now but I wanted to comment on your "trade" issues. I'll be back!
"In Canada, our government funded health agency"
That is another really fun one!
Why, if we must have state healthcare, should we not have state grocery stores? You might say that not everyone can afford healthcare; the same is true of food.
You might say that many people cannot make good decisions about doctors (or schools); the same is true of food. And why would one be qualified to participate in an election of government officials who are to make your medical decisions for you if one is not qualified to make the decisions oneself? And, would not this premise of a lack of qualificaton call for a dictator or like figure to make all of the decisions for his little ignorant sheep?
You say that "it reduces costs"; but is it not true that competition is the greatest source of innovation? And if this is not true, and governments are best at reducing costs and spurring innovation, why is it not the best policy to—you guessed it—socialize everything?
When it comes down to it, it is completely inconsistent to argue in favor of "socialized medicine" while standing against socialized grocery stores (or shopping malls, car dealerships, airlines, etc...). The only people who have it together are the "everything" camp (I call them "omnistatists"), and the "as little as possible"/"nothing" camp (called "minarchists" and "anarcho-capitalists" respectively).
Politicians always want to say that "certain things work in certain instances while not being the best policy in other areas". This is because politicians are "full of crap sellouts". Both the physical and social worlds are based on a set of hard and fast rules (called principles).
It's really hard to deny that "the world is round" once you have viewed it from space. On the other hand, it is incredibly easy to deny the rules of the social sciences. The social sciences can and often do prove or disprove the viability of social endevours (slave labor is almost never more productive than paid labor) just as much as the natural sciences prove or disprove the viability of various physical endevours (jumping off a cliff and flapping your arms wont make you fly).
However, unlike natural scientists, social scientists are regularly ignored. But who can blame anyone for not wanting to listen? Would you like it if someone told you "bill X that you are proposing will fail to achieve the ends at which it aims because it uses a means that science has shown to be useless for its puropses"? People just don't like hearing that their political programme sucks (meaning it will fail to achieve its stated ends) and science has proven it.
QTIP,
While I have not had enough time to read other contributors' comments I think it is wrong for Canada to be in Afghanistan in the name of the so called "basic human rights and democracy". My reasons are simple,technically,you agree or not,Canada is not in Afghanistan because of the deep belief she claims to have on human rights and democracy issue.Canada is in Afghanistan because US wanted her to be there.Why do you think Canada needed to wait for the US to establish a war there before going?Can't or couldn't Canada have acted solo far way before even the US was thinking of getting there?How long did the Taliban regime exist before the coalition forces went there? I can not wait for the day Canada will act as a close superpower from USA than acting as puppets of the US.We condemns the way the US ignored the Rwanda genocide.Why US alone?What about countries like Canada,China,Japan,UK,and the rest?When did Canadians go and apologize to Rwandan people for failing to take the role they were expected to take as addicts of human rights and democracy? Canada is not one state in United States.Canada is the country,a country that could be one of the watch dogs and not whatever you say master!
Nog:
Again, some very witty and interesting observation's. Your statement:
"However, unlike natural scientists, social scientists are regularly ignored."
How true is that?!(rhetorical question). Do you know how many homosexual "social policy" analysts said that same sex marriage is "bad social policy"? Heck they even wrote a book called "Divorcing Marriage" and political agenda's simply dismissed it despite the solid arguement and the credentials of the authors. Not to mention Switzerland who has alright implemented it and seen a complete breakdown of the family unit in their country.
Jeff:
Here is one of our few disagreements. But I welcome your input always. If I may respond as to why I disagree. Not because I want to change your mind, only you can do that, but to provide a different perspective. You said:
"Canada is in Afghanistan because US wanted her to be there."
The US "requested" Canada's participation but they could not force it. You have to remember that ever since 9/11 Canada has stood it's ground on where it will participate and where it will not. Canada agreed with the US on rooting out terrorism and helping out in Afghanistan. Canada disagreed with the war in Iraq and said "No! That we will not support." So I would disagree with you that we take our direction from the US. When Canada goes along with the US it is because we are in agreement, not because they told us we had to.
"Why do you think Canada needed to wait for the US to establish a war there before going?Can't or couldn't Canada have acted solo far way before even the US was thinking of getting there?"
The short answer to this is No! Canada does not have the military capability to do so. It required the US to pave the way so Canada could join in. I will give some examples of just how unprepared our military was in this instance.
1.) We had no means of getting ourselve's over there. The US had to fly our guy's and their equipment over. (personally, I find this embrassing for our nation)
2.) Once they did arrive the discovered it was a desert terrain. The only combat fatigues the Canadian military had were green. No other soldier from any country wanted to be within 50 yards of these guys as they were walking targets for the Taliban. They had to wait 5 months for the Canadian government to issue the proper fatigues.
3.) There armored vehicles were the cheapest money could buy that a firecracker would blow them over.
There were a many other reason's but the long and the short of it is there was no way Canada could have gone in solo. They were just not equipped.
"How long did the Taliban regime exist before the coalition forces went there?"
I could be wrong but I believe it has been 12 years. I just read about it the other day but I am going from memory.
"We condemns the way the US ignored the Rwanda genocide.Why US alone?What about countries like Canada,China,Japan,UK,and the rest?When did Canadians go and apologize to Rwandan people for failing to take the role they were expected to take as addicts of human rights and democracy?"
I have asked the same question myself. A very good arguement my friend. But I have an even bigger question...why ask/blame one or more countries? Where was the United Nations in all of this? They are all talk. They condemn with their mouths but lip service has never prevented genocide. It was their "DUTY" to look after these matters.
This would include Iraq. For 12 years Saddam snubbed the UN by throwing out inspector's over and over again in the meantime he was violating as many as 15 UN resolutions. Under their own mandate, violation of just one resolution is justification for war. What greater purpose do they serve? They are nothing but a bunch of useless paper tigers.
Anyways Jeff, my longwinded answer comes down to this...I would disagree with you that Canada is a puppet to the US. On many occasions we have disagreed with them and voiced it loud and clear. I do not think it is fair to refer to us as "puppets" when we do happen to agree. We just agree and that is that.
Let us all so bear in mind that the current Afghanistan government, just last week, strongly "requested"/urged that we stay on in their country until democracy has been firmly established. The US had nothing to do with that.
Q-TIP,
Deep inside I believe Canada is not "puppets" of the US.My personal observation is that Canada as a country acts/behaves like puppets.I will still stand firm on the ground believing that Canada has almost all it takes to stop the craziness US is causing around the world.If Canada and other G8 countries can not do,who do you think can?Tanzania?
When United States requested Canada to give them a support in Afghanistan she could have said No.She did not because she thought the cause was justice,basic human rights and democracy.Then why do you think Canada is not even talking about Sudan?About Somalia,Palestine.My direction and cry is that the world is full of places where adjusters of democracy and human rights are needed.When we go to places where US is the picture becomes more of interests than humanity and friendship.Always remember Q-TIP United States does not have friends,it has interests.
I find it somewhat ironic that I recall that the primary reason for the majority of the United States Army's defeats in the War of 1812 was the majority of the soldiers refusal to cross the US-Canadian border "because the consitution does not grant the the United States the authority to deploy troops beyond their territorial boundaries unless they are repelling an immediate invasion".
I cannot recall any point in the last fifty years (or more) where a foreign military "invaded" the United States. Blatantly sheltering militant terrorists does not make one an "immediate invader" of the United States. There is nothing that says that the United States Government could not have the Taliban and terrorist leaders conviniently "die of old age"; but, that allowance does not permitt a full scale invasion.
Using the criteria of the Framers, the following conflicts used American troops in a more or less legitimate manner:
The Revolutionary War - moot point because there was no constitution at that point
The Mexican-American War - arguably
The Second World War - arguably
The following wars were "against the rules":
The War of 1812
The War between the States - This is always everyone's favorite US war but it was none the less not fought on legitimate grounds. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession and the "Right to Seceede" is a requisite premise for the legitimacy of the United States as an independent nation (being no longer part of the United Kingdom). There can be no more of an implied ban on secession in the constitution than there could have been in the "Consitution" (it is unwritten) of the UK in the Pre-1776 period.
I totally agree that slavery screws everyone in the long run. But, a war of conquest of the Confederate States of America is as legitimate as a like war on Iraq. I'll gripe on why slavery would have died out on it's own before 1880 (and thus saving the US from perpetual racial hatred) later.
First World War - This war really never should have been fought by anyone (even more than other wars). Nobody "invaded" the US.
Vietnam War - Waging a war on something as vague as "preventing the communists from taking over the world" is never smart. Nobody "invaded" the US.
I am off for a weekend trip but I am intrigued by the continued discussion here. Keep it going guys, if you choose, I do not have time for input right now but I will be back to check on this Tuesday.
The, if this is still going I will jump back in. This is a good thing to be talking about regardless of the differing views here.
Post a Comment