|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jul 3, 2012 14:44:34 GMT -6
The best thing is actually several years of both. Those who prefer socialist spending over things like military spending is an idealogical difference. You wont be able to convince me that what the Liberals did to the military over the years was right and that the spending the Cons made was wrong.
A strong military and ability to defend ourselves and respond to disasters etc is important for a free nation. Does it mean we're planning for war with Russia? Ofcourse not, but its still important.
I dislike those who want to scrap the military "because the US will defend us anyway" and then look down their noses at the US.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jul 3, 2012 16:41:55 GMT -6
As a proponent of integrating a diplomaticly neutral status I can say I oppose the Conservatives actions. We as a nation of "Peacekeepers", should lead by example through diplomacy and not conflict in order to avoid the senseless bloodshed that occured in the Middle East. Armed conflict should soley be used as a last resort only to protect ourselves from an invasion and NOT to obtain resources from other countries.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jul 4, 2012 7:39:58 GMT -6
But that implies that our involvement in the middle east was solely to obtain resources. It was not.
The failure to act on Iraq before the US invaded was a failure of the United Nations. The mistake the US made was not their invasion (which was justified) but in staying. They over-estimated the Iraqi peoples willingness to accept them. The cheering masses turned pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jul 4, 2012 10:30:10 GMT -6
But that implies that our involvement in the middle east was solely to obtain resources. It was not. The failure to act on Iraq before the US invaded was a failure of the United Nations. The mistake the US made was not their invasion (which was justified) but in staying. They over-estimated the Iraqi peoples willingness to accept them. The cheering masses turned pretty quickly. What was the justification weapons that didn't exist? Iraq was soley about oil and Afghanistan was just a gateway into Iraq nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Jul 4, 2012 11:38:02 GMT -6
As a proponent of integrating a diplomaticly neutral status I can say I oppose the Conservatives actions. We as a nation of "Peacekeepers", should lead by example through diplomacy and not conflict in order to avoid the senseless bloodshed that occured in the Middle East. Armed conflict should soley be used as a last resort only to protect ourselves from an invasion and NOT to obtain resources from other countries. Canadian intervention in the middle east isn't a 'conservative' policy. The Chretien Liberals had Canada out there long before the Conservatives took power. Indeed, look at Canada's interventions abroad and you'll see they were largely initiated under Liberal governments: WWI - under Borden, a Conservative. This one gets an asterisk though because Canada was at war the moment Britain declared it since Canada was not yet autonomous in matters of foreign affairs in 1914. WWII - under Mackenzie King, a Liberal. Korea - under Mackenzie King, a Liberal (who agreed under protest - his cabinet wanted to pursue a policy of interventionalism while Mackenzie King was, at heart, an isolationist). Vietnam - no direct involvement other than a small contingent helping enforce the Paris Peace Accord. Not a major military action, but was initiated under a Liberal. October Crisis - Liberal. The ultimate abuse of authority without justification. Afghanistan - Liberal, in response to 9/11. Iraq - Liberal. See above. Libya - Conservative. Canadian involvement in foreign military actions has been apolitical. No party can claim either the dove or the hawk as their own. m.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jul 4, 2012 11:44:54 GMT -6
The justifications were many:
- The first Gulf War never ended. There was a cease fire and Iraq had to agree to a list of conditions. This likely saved Saddam from a US invasion at that time. Since that cease fire, Iraq continued efforts to develop weapons, used chemical weapons, thumbed their nose at the UN, attempted to assasinate a sitting US President and basically broke every condition they had agreed to.
- The UN made several resolutions designed to avert a resumption of the Gulf War. Saddam broke them repeatedly. Everytime his sabre rattling pushed the UN to the brink, he'd back off and "welcome" the UN inspectors in. Then he'd kick them out and go back to breaking the rules.
- The US simply demanded the UN enforce it's resolutions and if it would not or could not, they would assemble a coalition of like-minded nations to enforce them. Even then, the US actually backed down from their first "drop dead" date for Saddam to comply with the UN inspectors. The US further gave Saddam and his family advanced notice of war. Did Saddam give the Kurds advance notice when he used chemical weapons on them?
- The weapons issue. Lets say I keep arguing with the guy next door (or down the street, it doesnt really matter). Lets say I tell everyone else around us that I wish this guy would die. I further state that maybe Ill kill him myself one day and if he tries to stop me, I will use my vast cache of weapons to do it. Now, lets say my comments are played for the cops. Do you think the cops will shrug or break my door down?
Saddam bragged about having weapons of mass destruction. We know for a *fact* he had weapons of mass destruction in the form of chemical weapons he used on his own people. And there were reports that Hussein even thought he had far more weapons because his scientists lied to him out of fear of execution.
Because the US didnt find a smoking gun does not minimize all the other reasons to invade nor does it discount the fact that had Iraq created Nukes or obtained them or any other weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them on innocent people (much like their routine firing of rockets into Isreal).
The invasion of Iraq was 100% justified. But they shouldnt have stayed.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jul 4, 2012 13:54:45 GMT -6
As a proponent of integrating a diplomaticly neutral status I can say I oppose the Conservatives actions. We as a nation of "Peacekeepers", should lead by example through diplomacy and not conflict in order to avoid the senseless bloodshed that occured in the Middle East. Armed conflict should soley be used as a last resort only to protect ourselves from an invasion and NOT to obtain resources from other countries. Canadian intervention in the middle east isn't a 'conservative' policy. The Chretien Liberals had Canada out there long before the Conservatives took power. Indeed, look at Canada's interventions abroad and you'll see they were largely initiated under Liberal governments: WWI - under Borden, a Conservative. This one gets an asterisk though because Canada was at war the moment Britain declared it since Canada was not yet autonomous in matters of foreign affairs in 1914. WWII - under Mackenzie King, a Liberal. Korea - under Mackenzie King, a Liberal (who agreed under protest - his cabinet wanted to pursue a policy of interventionalism while Mackenzie King was, at heart, an isolationist). Vietnam - no direct involvement other than a small contingent helping enforce the Paris Peace Accord. Not a major military action, but was initiated under a Liberal. October Crisis - Liberal. The ultimate abuse of authority without justification. Afghanistan - Liberal, in response to 9/11. Iraq - Liberal. See above. Libya - Conservative. Canadian involvement in foreign military actions has been apolitical. No party can claim either the dove or the hawk as their own. m. The thing about the Conservatives is atleast they will do what they say in their campaign promises, although I don't like the direction and decisions the Conservatives make. The Liberals on the other hand talk out of both sides of their mouthes and try the shotgun affect to please everyone. I don't like what the Liberals have done in the past with military intervention as it makes them hiprocrites. We thankfully didn't get involved in that Iraq abortion, what benefits did that have to the world?
|
|
|
Post by lukemiguez on Jul 6, 2012 14:23:13 GMT -6
The justifications were many: - The first Gulf War never ended. There was a cease fire and Iraq had to agree to a list of conditions. This likely saved Saddam from a US invasion at that time. Since that cease fire, Iraq continued efforts to develop weapons, used chemical weapons, thumbed their nose at the UN, attempted to assasinate a sitting US President and basically broke every condition they had agreed to. - The UN made several resolutions designed to avert a resumption of the Gulf War. Saddam broke them repeatedly. Everytime his sabre rattling pushed the UN to the brink, he'd back off and "welcome" the UN inspectors in. Then he'd kick them out and go back to breaking the rules. - The US simply demanded the UN enforce it's resolutions and if it would not or could not, they would assemble a coalition of like-minded nations to enforce them. Even then, the US actually backed down from their first "drop dead" date for Saddam to comply with the UN inspectors. The US further gave Saddam and his family advanced notice of war. Did Saddam give the Kurds advance notice when he used chemical weapons on them? - The weapons issue. Lets say I keep arguing with the guy next door (or down the street, it doesnt really matter). Lets say I tell everyone else around us that I wish this guy would die. I further state that maybe Ill kill him myself one day and if he tries to stop me, I will use my vast cache of weapons to do it. Now, lets say my comments are played for the cops. Do you think the cops will shrug or break my door down? Saddam bragged about having weapons of mass destruction. We know for a *fact* he had weapons of mass destruction in the form of chemical weapons he used on his own people. And there were reports that Hussein even thought he had far more weapons because his scientists lied to him out of fear of execution. Because the US didnt find a smoking gun does not minimize all the other reasons to invade nor does it discount the fact that had Iraq created Nukes or obtained them or any other weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them on innocent people (much like their routine firing of rockets into Isreal). The invasion of Iraq was 100% justified. But they shouldnt have stayed. Chemical, Nuclear and Biological weapons system were never found after the commencement of the Iraq War in 2003. Surely after all these years of occupation you'd think the Americans would have ran into evidence of their existence. Since that in itself was the basis for the United States attempt to con the UN into sanctioning the war, it undermines whatever reasoning they attempting to utilize to get sanctioning from the UN. Only the UN can seek its membership to enforce a UN resolution, it never gave sanctioning to the United States for the Iraq War in 2003, thus the Americans can never say with authority that they had the right to utilize military force against Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime. To the original question, I would vote NDP. I'm a thorough socialist who finds the steady centrist drift of the NDP pretty concerning, but that wouldn't stop me from voting for them en lieu of the other options.
|
|
|
Post by pachman40 on Jul 6, 2012 16:37:50 GMT -6
oh gosh, just found this thread and its juicy, lots of opposing thoughts to mine but not enough time to compose a proper post...will revisit soon
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jul 7, 2012 13:38:26 GMT -6
Luke, do you believe that Saddam did *not* use chemical weapons in Iraq?
If I use illegal weapons on someone and then for years after brag about how I am stock piling more and more weapons and intend to kill people, and then the cops storm my home and find none, do I get to stand on a soap box and say they had no justification for "invading" my home?
The Americans made a critical error in tieing their invasion to weapons of mass destruction because they did *not* need to do that to justify their actions. I think they felt they needed to in an effort to gain more positive public opinion though at that time, they had plenty of support for their actions.
The fact that Iraq repeatedly violated the UN resolutions that were the conditions of the Gulf War cease fire ending combat with the US-led coalition was justification enough. One can argue (as you did) that the US had no authority to enforce UN resolutions without the direct consent of the UN. Thats an interesting argument for sure. I believe that is why the US sought out support from other nations, to show that there was *enough* support despite the UN not endorsing it.
In my opinion, the UN came *this close* to becoming complete irrelevent at the time. After all, if an organization like the UN creates resolution that authorizes the use of force if a nation does not comply and then repeatedly says "just kidding, you can have more time", what use is it? The US choosing the enforce the UN resolutions itself saved the UN from itself.
I realise it's a slippery slope to say that its the responsibility of nations like the US to enforce democracy and peace around the globe but there must be a certain level of that ideology. We're blessed to have been born in Canada. others arent so lucky.
The fact the US found no weapons of mass destruction does not mitigate the fact Saddam thought he had them, bragged he had them and intended to use them if he had, in fact, had them.
Not to mention the attempt by Iraq to assasinate a sitting President.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Jul 7, 2012 16:15:51 GMT -6
We're not in full agreement with everything you posted there TUP but any post that is laid out so rationally gets a +1.
m.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jul 7, 2012 18:43:53 GMT -6
We're not in full agreement with everything you posted there TUP but any post that is laid out so rationally gets a +1. m. I appreciate that. I actually engaged in several political debates with a new friend and it got me thinking. So I compiled a list of issues that Conservatives and Liberals believe in (not the same issues, but the ones each side believes in) and went through the list to see which I agree with. If I recall, it was something like 5 Conservative, 2 Democrat, 2 Libertarian and 8 some combination of the three. In short, no one party fully represents me (and I suspect that is how it is for most people) but I believe it is our responsibility to find that party which shares the most important of our views and support them. Over the years, I've voted NDP, Liberal and Conservative. I was a supporter of the Manitoba Conservatives while still supporting the Federal Liberals. That changes as the Liberals changed and the "right" got their crap together. Cant say I support Obama (but I liked Bill Clinton and would have supported Hillary). I was behind Mitt until he came out so strongly that only a man and a woman should be allowed to be together. That is the social issue of our time. As ridiculous as it seems now for there have ever been people who were against equal rights for blacks or women, it will seem as ludicrous in the future that anyone took the time and energy to oppose happy marriage. ***Note: And by "happy" marriage, I ofcourse mean the three letter slang term for homosexual marriage...lol
|
|
|
Post by selanne405 on Jul 15, 2012 18:10:12 GMT -6
The justifications were many: - The first Gulf War never ended. There was a cease fire and Iraq had to agree to a list of conditions. This likely saved Saddam from a US invasion at that time. Since that cease fire, Iraq continued efforts to develop weapons, used chemical weapons, thumbed their nose at the UN, attempted to assasinate a sitting US President and basically broke every condition they had agreed to. - The UN made several resolutions designed to avert a resumption of the Gulf War. Saddam broke them repeatedly. Everytime his sabre rattling pushed the UN to the brink, he'd back off and "welcome" the UN inspectors in. Then he'd kick them out and go back to breaking the rules. - The US simply demanded the UN enforce it's resolutions and if it would not or could not, they would assemble a coalition of like-minded nations to enforce them. Even then, the US actually backed down from their first "drop dead" date for Saddam to comply with the UN inspectors. The US further gave Saddam and his family advanced notice of war. Did Saddam give the Kurds advance notice when he used chemical weapons on them? - The weapons issue. Lets say I keep arguing with the guy next door (or down the street, it doesnt really matter). Lets say I tell everyone else around us that I wish this guy would die. I further state that maybe Ill kill him myself one day and if he tries to stop me, I will use my vast cache of weapons to do it. Now, lets say my comments are played for the cops. Do you think the cops will shrug or break my door down? Saddam bragged about having weapons of mass destruction. We know for a *fact* he had weapons of mass destruction in the form of chemical weapons he used on his own people. And there were reports that Hussein even thought he had far more weapons because his scientists lied to him out of fear of execution. Because the US didnt find a smoking gun does not minimize all the other reasons to invade nor does it discount the fact that had Iraq created Nukes or obtained them or any other weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them on innocent people (much like their routine firing of rockets into Isreal). The invasion of Iraq was 100% justified. But they shouldnt have stayed. How come the US sits by and allows Korea to openly develop and test nukes?
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jul 16, 2012 18:25:50 GMT -6
Likely several reasons.
North Korea hasn't invaded any other countries which brings me back to my first point concerning the invasion of Iraq: The first Gulf War never "ended", it was paused due to a cease fire which required Iraq to follow several conditions. Iraq ignored those conditions, thus the war "continued".
North Korea is also more complicated politically situated so closely to Russia and China. NK has been buried under sanctions for a long time.
The US also hasn't invaded Iran which, like North Korea, is developing Nukes. Iran has also threatened it's neighbours and stated that Isreal should be blown off the face of the earth.
If Iran continues to march towards Nuclear arms, someone (likely Isreal) will destroy it's ability to do so and I cant blame them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2012 12:28:34 GMT -6
Whichever party improves the numbers in my bank account.
|
|