Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

The nature of the bombing of Dresden has made it a unique point of contention and debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dr..._a_war_crime.3F

The statutes of The Hague tribunal say the court has the right to try suspects alleged to have violated the laws or customs of war in the former Yugoslavia since 1992. Examples of such violations are given in article 3:

Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity

Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings

Seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science

Plunder of public or private property.

The tribunal defines crime against humanity as crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population. Again a list of examples is given in article 5:

Murder

Extermination

Enslavement

Deportation

Imprisonment

Torture

Rape

Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.

Yet US leaders who were responsible for some of the most heinous war crimes ever committed - the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombings of Dresden, Tokyo and 66 other Japanese cities - were never brought to justice.

Only the vanquished Germans and Japanese were put on trial. Justice Radhabinod Pal of India, dissenting at the Tokyo Tribunal, called this "victor's justice."

Indeed, Robert McNamara, who participated in the bombing of Japan during World War II, admitted in the film Fog of War that he and General Curtis LeMay would have been tried for war crimes if the US had lost the war. He said, "LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He ... and I'd say I ... were behaving as war criminals."

As strange as it is I have to admit also that Argus has a point about prosecution for war crimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 493
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What would be a "proportionate" number of innocent Lebanese? And how do you attack a terrorist guerrila group which operates from cities and towns without harming civilians?

Same way you take care of them in Iraq. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rue

What Israel is clearly doing is pushing Hezbollah North to the Syrian border and will create a new buffer zone. Now that Iran and Syria have supplied Hezbollah with up-to-date missiles, there is a war going on. Syria and Iran are at War with Israel only being the cowards that they are they will do it through Hezbollah and not send their armies because their armies are corupted, weak and have no logistics capable of supporting an invasion of Israel. They will do what they do best, hide behind someone else and act passively letting other people fight their war.

Yes you are right. But beware bigger powers are at play. We all know that the US and former Soviet Union fought proxy wars with each other for decades during the cold war. So this is yet another proxy war. Yes you have Iran as a backer and to some extent then Russia. Then the US and general Western/European support for Israel. So this thing can really polarize the world stage quickly and drasticly. Time to pick sides it seems.

You cannot call Hezbollah cowards, then call the Muhajedeen freedom fighters because they were able to fight off the Soviets and reclaim Afghanistan. The point being the Muhajedeen were being armed by the US, because the US did not want to directly get involved themselves. That would have set of a major conflict between the Soviets and Americans. So to act cowardly is also seen as a valid strategical move. Why bring war to your door, when you can go fight it on their turf.

Technology will always be upgraded and weapons are always being improved upon. They ran out of the old crap, and had to buy some new crap. So black market time and let's see what's the best new crap we can buy for our currency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Argus is correct here, and he is pointing out that the Allies did in fact do things that would have seen others hung...by the victors. It is an example of the absence of ethics, not faulty ones. Cold, hard pragmatism is another description of it. The nature of a 'right' was covered thoroughly on another thread (where debate about the Holocaust, and the rights of Jews, and 'rights' in general, got so heated one very good former poster, "the Terrible Sweal" ended up being banned for actions such as what Argus and Black Dog have sunken to). Basically, yes, the gassing of Jews would not have been against the law had the Nazis won.

I agree that it wouldn't have been against the law, Argus is correct in this regard. But it's still morally wrong, and that's what I insist Israel is in indiscriminate bombing campaigns in Lebanon.

Anti-semitic? When Israel chose the Star of David to be on their flag, they made a choice. Israel is Jewish, though I suppose not all Jews are Israeli. I wonder how many are taking Lebanon's side in this?

And why is that important to you?

It's not.

I didn't say anything about right and wrong. Laws don't always relate to right and wrong.

So are you arguing Israel is legally right, but possibly morally wrong? If so, I agree. Otherwise, I don't get your point.

But you do have a problem with Israel being collectively responsible for their actions... interesting.

Depends on the actions. What would you like to hold all Israelis responsible for? Defending themselves?

Nope, defending themselves is good. Like I said, attack Hezbollah, invade Lebanon if you wish. But don't just destroy infrastructure that only hurts your average innocent Lebanese man/woman. They have no business in this war, this is Israel vs. terrorism, not punish the poor Lebanese man.

Are you suggesting Israel is just "randomly" bombing houses. Even BD said they weren't killing civilians deliberately. Do you think otherwise?

No, but I don't think they are giving due dilegence in their operations. Their wish to set back Lebanon 10 years infrastructure wise is evidence of my point, it's not about terrorism, it's about inflicting pain and punishment.

I don't think they want to intentionally kill civilians, if they did, they would have killed alot more, not dropped leaflets, ect.. But they do want to punish civilians, which is ridiculous in it's own right. Most of these people voted against violence and Hezbollah, why should they suffer when they executed their democratic right in Israel's favour.

The average Lebanese person can't disarm Hezbollah, all he can do is elect the party with the best chance of doing so... which he did. It's little his fault that that party is still incapable of making real change.

You don't get to divorce yourself from the actions of a state-recognized militia which operates openly on your territory, has tv stations and radio stations, has MPs and cabinet ministers in parliament....

So Britian could bomb Ireland in the 70's without moral consequence? You wouldn't be at least opposed to the British wanted to put those Irish langers back into the stone age? The IRA/PIRA had MP's, ministers and TV stations, not to mention a militia that openly recruited and operated. This religious war had a (recently) peaceful outcome. Not through indiscriminate bombing though.

Remember 90% of Lebanese people voted for peace and against Hezbollah.

Lebanese people vote for whomever is in their religion. Since the Shias only represent about 11% of Lebanese, they were the ones voting for Hezbolah. That does not imply the rest of Lebanese didn't hate Israelis, and weren't quite happy to see Israelis shot, killed and or kidnapped.

That's not true, if you did some research you'd find that most parties aren't overly religious based... no more than 20 years ago in English Canada where Protestants voted Conservative and Catholics voted Liberal... actually... you don't even need to look back 20 years...

So you disagree with BD. You're saying the Israelis are deliberately targeting civilians? I'd just like to get that statement out in the open.

No, they are intentionally targeting civilian infrastructure that has nothing to do with the conflict in order to make civilians suffer for 'punishment'.

They're a message to the rest of the Lebanese. Get rid of the terrorists.

Thanks for proving my point. Israel wants them to suffer... maybe they'll catch on, maybe they'll get angry.

What would be a "proportionate" number of innocent Lebanese? And how do you attack a terrorist guerrila group which operates from cities and towns without harming civilians?

Well bombing houses that may or may not contain one of thousands of guerrilas isn't really going to end terrorism now is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing will ever stop terrorism, nothing. It is a crime against humanity. It is an international crime. This entire dialogue being conducted here in this forum is based on the false premise of something called state sponsored terrorism. The reality is that states support independent covert operations, they always have and they always will. Do these covert operations create terror, yes. Are these operations specific to any specific nation, no. Can one state provide logistic and monetary support to operatives of many different nationalities,yes.

This war will not put an end to terrorism in the middle east, just as the current war on terror being conducted by western powers will not eliminate terror anywhere else. Terrorism occurs where ever an individual citizen perceives government action detrimental to their political views. This can and does occur in every nation on this planet. Sometimes a nation will support an individual citizen to conduct operations against another government in another nation, this happens. This will continue to happen. It is a fact of life, and always has been. There is no new world after 9/11. The world has not even changed. The same things are going on now that went on before 9/11. Those things will continue to happen. This is the way things are, and nobody is going to be able to change that through the use of violence. The violence may stop for a short time but it will resume I assure you.

Mankind is a violent species. In many places on earth it is a way of life. No Pax anthing ever solves the problem. This current battle will not bring peace to either Arab or Jew, Palestinian or Israeli. The best plan for the nations of the world is to not respond in kind and provide assistance to the injured when the battles are over. The only logical move is to limit the damages that we do to each other by reducing the size of the conflict and not becoming a participant in it. The taking of sides by individuals and groups not directly involved in conflict inflicts greater harm and prolongs those conflicts. At the end of a conflict, a victorious nation should be judged by the international community for its conduct and behavior and by democratic means appropriately sentenced if found in guilt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you suggesting there is no real threat and Israel is not really besieged?

There's no real threat to Israel's existence, no. Yes, individual Israeli's citizens face threats to their lives, but there is no force arrayed against Israel that poses a serious threat to its continued existence as a state. Thus, to call Israel "beseiged" is an exaggeration, one made laughable by an even cursory consideration of the capabilities of the respective combatants. In other words, that schtick may have worked back in the middle of the last century when Israel was fighting for its life against the combined might of the Arab states, but it has little resonance today when talking of a nuclear armed Israel that is the military better of all its foes combined. The reason Hamas and Hizbullah conduct suicide operations and mostly symbolic rocket attacks on civilian targets is such attacks are the sole expression of their capabilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel invades.

Israeli ground troops have entered southern Lebanon to attack Hezbollah bases on the border, a government spokesman said Monday.

Israel's six-day-old offensive against Hezbollah following the capture of two Israeli soldiers has been an aerial campaign. The government spokesman, Asaf Shariv, said the Israeli army chief of staff confirmed that ground troops were also in Lebanon.

Israel has been reluctant to send ground troops into southern Lebanon, an area that officials say has been heavily mined by Hezbollah and could lead to many Israeli casualties.

Israel would also want to quickly withdraw from the area, rather than get involved in a prolonged conflict like its 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon that ended in May 2000. The bloody nature of the fighting at the that time and the high number of casualties finally forced the government to cave into public pressure to withdraw from southern Lebanon and end the contentious occupation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about right and wrong. Laws don't always relate to right and wrong.

So are you arguing Israel is legally right, but possibly morally wrong? If so, I agree. Otherwise, I don't get your point

No. I'm saying that in this case Israel is morally right but could possibly be legally wrong.

But you do have a problem with Israel being collectively responsible for their actions... interesting.

Depends on the actions. What would you like to hold all Israelis responsible for? Defending themselves?

Nope, defending themselves is good. Like I said, attack Hezbollah, invade Lebanon if you wish. But don't just destroy infrastructure that only hurts your average innocent Lebanese man/woman. They have no business in this war, this is Israel vs. terrorism, not punish the poor Lebanese man.

That is, unfortunately, not the way the world works. Whether it's a nation against terrorism, or against the leader of another nation, or against the actions of another nation, war is still used to influence the conduct of nations. The Israelis are not going to be able to kill all the terrorists. What they want to do is persuade the Lebanese to no longer make their land available for the use of terrorists. The only way to do that is to punish Lebanon for failing to control the terrorists within its borders. As for "invading Lebanon" are you not aware that this would result in far, far more damage and casualties to civilians?

You don't get to divorce yourself from the actions of a state-recognized militia which operates openly on your territory, has tv stations and radio stations, has MPs and cabinet ministers in parliament....

So Britian could bomb Ireland in the 70's without moral consequence? You wouldn't be at least opposed to the British wanted to put those Irish langers back into the stone age. The IRA/PIRA had MP's, ministers and TV stations, not to mention a militia that openly recruited and operated. This religious war had a (recently) peaceful outcome. Not through indiscriminate bombing though.

You are mistaken. As one columnist recently pointed out, the most vicious war in Ireland wasn't between the British and Irish, but between the Irish Republic and the IRA. The Republic was determined there would be only one army in Ireland; Theirs. The IRA did not operate openly in Ireland, despite the sympathy most Irish had for them, and the Irish army and police forces were diligent in attempting to prevent attacks across the border into Northern Ireland. They weren't perfect, by any means, but did their best. That is why the British never felt any need to punish the republic. The same columnnist pointed out that Syria hates the Israelis, but their border is quiet and peaceful, because they neither launch nor allow anyone to launch attacks against Israel from Syrian territory. Then they fund attacks from Lebanon, which ought to clue in the Lebanese about just how much the Syrians care about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The best plan for the nations of the world is to not respond in kind and provide assistance to the injured when the battles are over. The only logical move is to limit the damages that we do to each other by reducing the size of the conflict and not becoming a participant in it.

You wish, this gives the US, the worst Terrorists in the world, the excuse they have been looking for to declare war on Iran and Syria - and we know the US wont stop until there is nothing left in the world -

Hitler was small potatoes compared to Bush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You wish, this gives the US, the worst Terrorists in the world, the excuse they have been looking for to declare war on Iran and Syria - and we know the US wont stop until there is nothing left in the world -

Hitler was small potatoes compared to Bush.

This is silly. The U.S. won't declare war on Iran and Syria. Even the Cheney administration isn't dumb enough to try and add two more wars on top of deteriorating campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will keep backing Israel's play, though, in hopes that they can weaken Hizbullah and thus reduce the influence of Iran.

As for the Hitler comparison: its completely inaccurate and most counterproductive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The best plan for the nations of the world is to not respond in kind and provide assistance to the injured when the battles are over. The only logical move is to limit the damages that we do to each other by reducing the size of the conflict and not becoming a participant in it.

You wish, this gives the US, the worst Terrorists in the world, the excuse they have been looking for to declare war on Iran and Syria - and we know the US wont stop until there is nothing left in the world -

Hitler was small potatoes compared to Bush.

I've seen some loony statements on here in the past, by some pretty loony people, but this is probably the most idiotic statement by anyone who wasn't a fly-by-night-quickly-banned-nutcase.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You wish, this gives the US, the worst Terrorists in the world, the excuse they have been looking for to declare war on Iran and Syria - and we know the US wont stop until there is nothing left in the world -

Hitler was small potatoes compared to Bush.

This is silly. The U.S. won't declare war on Iran and Syria. Even the Cheney administration isn't dumb enough to try and add two more wars on top of deteriorating campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will keep backing Israel's play, though, in hopes that they can weaken Hizbullah and thus reduce the influence of Iran.

If I was going to theorize world-power brinksmanship and gameplaying over this, what I would theorize an attempt to draw Syria in, as in an attack on the Bekaa valley, for instance, provoking them. Iran has loudly proclaimed that if Israel attacked Syria (they would never acknolwedge self defence even if it were true) then Iran would punish Israel, presumably fire off some missiles in Israel's direction. That would give Israel the excuse to fire off a hoarde of cruise missiles at Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm sure the US would give them as many as they wanted, too. Iran's missiles might be a step up from the ones the Lebanese have, but they're still basically junk without any accuracy. Israel would suffer little in exchange for putting Iran's nuke efforts back some years. They could have some fun and take out the parliament building, secret police and a few other choice targets while they were at it.

As for the Hitler comparison: its completely inaccurate and most counterproductive.

And moronic

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am suggesting Bush is more determined than Hitler ever was to rule the world. Hitler wanted a world wise Aryan Race, Bush wants to push Christianity down the throat of every person in the world. Hitler was a maniac and so is Bush. Hitler only invaded his neighbours, ok and England, thank God Bush has chosen to go further afield, but he has already targeted Iran, Korea, China, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, if not with open warfare to all of them, with asides that they could or will be next, He has waged economic war on Canada already, and has been threatening since Day One to take over Border Security and put Homeland Security into Canada as well.

Dont exhale yet Canadians - we have oil and natural gas resources too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the US is evacuating its citizens, even Italy has started evacuations and were kind enough to take some Canadians along with them ... where is Canada?

Oh yes Harper is still in France and assures the media that Canada "will get in there as soon as possible" but at the same time saying Canadians ""have to remember we dont have the resources BIGGER countries have - damn I always thought Italy was smaller than we are with less military ........

Oh right our military is over in the other Middle East fighting a war for Bush.

But they are looking into renting 7 commercial ships for the 50 - 60,000 Canadians in Lebanon. According to the US the best they can do is evacuate 1000 people a day .......... do the math. The US has even sent in helicopters for their people.

Get out your hiking boots Canadians ........... I wouldnt be sitting around holding my breath and waiting for Canada to make a move .......

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am suggesting Bush is more determined than Hitler ever was to rule the world. Hitler wanted a world wise Aryan Race, Bush wants to push Christianity down the throat of every person in the world.

Bush is not forcing anyone to be Christian, and he is certainly not killing millions of people for not being Christian.

Hitler was a maniac and so is Bush.

I prefer to think of Bush as an idiot rather than a maniac like hitler was.

Hitler only invaded his neighbours, ok and England...

Maybe these maps will help:

Link

Link

and

Link

thank God Bush has chosen to go further afield, but he has already targeted Iran, Korea, China, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, if not with open warfare to all of them, with asides that they could or will be next,

Bush invaded afghanistan because they harbored bin laden who attacked the U.S. Perhaps bush could have handled it better by negotiating more with the taliban to get bin laden, but hindsight is 20/20. That war was justified. I disagree with the war in iraq, but at least bush thought they were a threat. What threat did germany's neighbors pose? All hitler cared about was taking over the world. Bush is at least trying to make the world more secure, even if he has gone wrong about how to do so. As for Iran et al., we will have to wait and see what happens. Bush probably doesn't have enough time left in his presidency to invade them all.

He has waged economic war on Canada already, and has been threatening since Day One to take over Border Security and put Homeland Security into Canada as well.

Ok so bush has screwed us over economically, at least he's not gasing us.

Dont exhale yet Canadians - we have oil and natural gas resources too.

Do you really think the U.S. will invade Canada? How will they justify that one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am suggesting Bush is more determined than Hitler ever was to rule the world.

Which is why he's invaded Canada and Mexico, right?

Hitler wanted a world wise Aryan Race, Bush wants to push Christianity down the throat of every person in the world.

Maybe you'd like to point me to the extermination camps Bush has set up? Your view of Bush is infantile. You think he's a bible thumping religious fanatic? His own daughters are hard-drinking party chicks and Bush is a former alcholic and party animal himself. His embracing of the Christian right is for political reasons only.

Hitler was a maniac and so is Bush. Hitler only invaded his neighbours, ok and England, thank God Bush has chosen to go further afield, but he has already targeted Iran, Korea, China, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, if not with open warfare to all of them, with asides that they could or will be next,

Utter drivel. Hitler invaded nations to conquer them and add them to his empire. No one sane believes the Americans are going to stay in Iraq or Afghanistan. As for the others, they're simply enemy states and Bush has no intention of invading any of them. Forget your paranoid delusions. It ain't happening.

He has waged economic war on Canada already,

Twaddle. If the US president wanted to wage economic war on Canada we'd have 50% unemployment and food lines stretching all the way from the Bay of Fundy to the Rockies. 95% of our huge trade with the US passes back and forth without question or problem.

Dont exhale yet Canadians - we have oil and natural gas resources too.

Paranoid lunacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see the US is evacuating its citizens

The US has a huge military and navy. Canada's military was largely destroyed by liberals.

even Italy has started evacuations and were kind enough to take some Canadians along with them ... where is Canada?

Er, about 5,000 milies further away from Lebanon than Italy is? Ever seen a map? where's Lebanon again? The Meditteranian? Where's Italy again? The Meditteranian?

But they are looking into renting 7 commercial ships for the 50 - 60,000 Canadians in Lebanon. According to the US the best they can do is evacuate 1000 people a day .......... do the math. The US has even sent in helicopters for their people.

Get out your hiking boots Canadians ........... I wouldnt be sitting around holding my breath and waiting for Canada to make a move .......

Be nice if we had helicopters and helicopter carriers but liberals refused to buy any. Now those selfsame liberals are squealing because the "massive" Canadian military can't move heavan and earth to get some plastic Canadians out of Lebanon in under a week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you call the beef thing? That really hurt Canada economically, the softwood lumber thing, granted it started eons ago but the US is having problems cooperating on decisions made, delays in customs, creating new tariffs? Canadian manufacturers are losing HUGE profits because of it ......

Exporters should be aware of the impediments to trade presented by non-tariff barriers, security issues and “buy American” policies.

Generally, barriers to trade are described as tariff or non-tariff barriers. A tariff is a tax applied to

merchandise imports and, less frequently, on exports. The tax may be levied either on an ad valorem basis

(a fixed percentage of the value of an imported product) or on a specific basis (a fixed levy per unit of

imported product). Following a final tariff reduction between Canada and Mexico, which took effect on

January 1, 2003, virtually all trade in the NAFTA region has flowed tariff-free.

Non-tariff barriers (NTBs) are government measures or policies, other than tariffs, that restrict or distort

international trade. As tariffs are lowered or eliminated, for example by a free trade agreement, it becomes

more important to address non-tariff measures that can be used to frustrate trade. Examples of NTBs

include import quotas, discriminatory government procurement practices and discriminatory measures to

protect intellectual property. A further class of non-tariff barrier is that of technical barriers to trade

(TBTs), such as government requirements for unnecessary duplicate testing and certification of an

imported product. ....................... Canada is committed to identifying unfair barriers to Canadian exports and to working with our trading partners to eliminate those barriers. ................

..........A second major barrier to the smooth flow of U.S.-Canada trade is that of security. The 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States caused greatly increased concern about U.S. domestic security, and this has

significantly affected how exports from Canada and around the world enter the U.S. Security measures

continue to evolve and may complicate your export business, for example by slowing traffic across the

border or by requiring more preparation and documentation.............

But in the wake of 9-11, business leaders and conservative think-tanks advanced an ambitious plan that would transform not only the border but the essence of Canadian sovereignty . Variously called a "grand bargain," the "big idea," or "deep integration," the proposal would trade the harmonization of security, immigration, and refugee policies for simpler access to the U.S. for Canadian exporters. In some versions (like the customs union proposed by the C.D.Howe Institute), the border would disappear altogether.

"Harmonization," of course, is a loaded term. In theory, Canada could continue to nominally make policy on matters like policing, refugees, and immigration, so long as Washington is satisfied with the results. In practice, this implies mimicking U.S. approaches.

Big Brother is moving in, silently, and unnoticed ......... none of this ever gets into the news..

the US also defines national security more broadly as can be seen from President George W. Bush’s first National Security Presidential Directive. It states that:

[n]ational security includes the defense of the United States of America, protection of our constitutional system of government, and the advancement of United States interests around the globe. National security also depends on America's opportunity to prosper in the world economy.13

...............Ultimately, Canada’s security can only be assured by cooperating with the United States. Canada will, therefore, continue to seek continental security through collective and cooperative efforts with the US. This means that there is a driving imperative for interoperable military and security forces - in doctrine,

training and equipment - in order to conduct assigned missions effectively. Importantly, being interoperable is not an abrogation of sovereignty, it simply means being able to ‘plug-into’ a larger bi-national or multi-national force when so directed by political decision-makers.

............Implicit within the model is the premise that nations with limited resources should look to maximize

their capabilities by taking an integrated, interdepartmental, national and regional approach towards maritime security. A point was made during the conference that a navy designed and trained for war fighting provides Canada with the greatest amount of flexibility, and that only a navy capable of conducting both the military and diplomatic roles is also capable of carrying-out the domestic (or constabulary)

role, whereas the converse is not true...........

You dont even have to read between the lines to know that the US is taking over Canada's security, transportation and defense. US wont declare "open warfare" on Canada, its doesnt have to, we will just sit on our collective butts and let it happen, we wont even notice it HAS happened until the Canadian flags come down and the American flags go up ............ Our rail carriers seem to have US flags painted on the sides of their box cars now ...........

Off topic I know but I wanted to respond to Argus.. infiltration and economic tariffs is how its being done, threats surrounding security, imprisionment and deportation of Canadian citizens ... slowly slowly ..... so they dont wake the sleeping Canadians ........... pointing the finger at Canada everytime there is any kind of terrorist alert or activity ......... keeping the US Media reporting the "Canadian Threat" ..........

They dont have to "invade" Canada, and just FYI look up "NAWAPA" Noth American Water and Power Authority - it makes for interesting reading ......... and it aint dead yet.

Twaddle. If the US president wanted to wage economic war on Canada we'd have 50% unemployment and food lines stretching all the way from the Bay of Fundy to the Rockies. 95% of our huge trade with the US passes back and forth without question or problem
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right. It was a poor analogy. A better one would be a terrorist group composed of people who hate Canadians firing missiles across the border for months, terrorizing and killing Canadians while our protests to the American government are met with sneers and shrugs. The terrorist group in question, living openly, brandishing their weapons openly, with congressman in the US Congress, their own radio station, their television station, training bases and such, THEN attacks us, kills Canadian soldiers, and kidnaps others.

In Lebanon, they are not a terrorist group. They are part of the political process. Something many forget is that Hezbollah owes it's existance to the earlier 1982 invasion of Lebanon (Im sure you remember - the one where Reagan said there were no marines in Beirut a couple days before they blew up the barracks, along with some 300 marines - it was a big international incident, but is conveniently left out of your history primers). When Israel backed a Christian militia in the ensuing civil war, Iran backed a Shiite militia. Both state actors (Iran AND Israel) were meddling in the internal affairs of Lebanon. So let's not pretend the Israelis have not stirred this up themselves. If the PM of Lebanon tried to restrain the militias, he would likely be met with civil war, which NOONE (I pray) wants. Why not help the Lebanese restrain the militas with a UN deployment...oh thats right..the US and Israel don't want that, and the US has a veto.

Wholesale slaughter? Syria killed 50,000 people in a week when it smashed the Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Hama. The Israelis have been trying to avoid civilian casualties, but it's awfully hard when Hezbollah terrorists are using villages for fire bases, and their headquarters are right in Beirut. Israel could be killing people by the hundreds and thousands with very little effort. So far most appear to be accidents.

I guess this is semantics - unless it happened to you. If your whole family died in a bomb strike, could you call it a 'slaughter'? I sure as hell would.

I would imagine the punishment will end when the Lebananese stop firing missiles into Israel.

Most Lebanese are not firing missiles into Israel. What are they to think? What we are accomplishing, in record time, is a new generation of people with a valid reason to hate the West.

The only way the town would deserve punishment would be if the armed robber was a town hero and the town either refused to do anything about him, cheered him on in each of his robberies, and gathered to throw stones and bottles at the police any time they went near his home.

I suppose this is the only way you can parse this complex situation - by reducing it to inane simplicities. Imagine instead that the town couldnt do anything about it, because the town had no police force and the robber had a gang that was more powerful. Maybe the 'Federalies' could step in to help the town get rid of their gang problem? Or we could just burn the whole town down, children and all. I guess thats acceptable to you.

What gives the Lebanese the the right to indiscriminately target Israeli civilians and civilian infrastructure?

Now your logic has completely fallen apart. Lebanese are not doing any such thing. Using our earlier analogy, criminals hiding amongst the civilians are. 'Snakes in the grass', if you will. So how then does a state actor, with all the might and power of a modern military (FYI Israel has the 4th MOST powerful military in the world) justify it?

The only way I can see is that they consider Lebanese lives worth less than Israeli lives. It's simple..to make an omelet, crack a few eggs, right? This is a state-sponsored terroism campaign. It will be coming to a theater near you, circa 2100.

Oh stop your snivelling. Israel has shown more than enough patience. Now it has finally been pushed beyond tolerance and is taking action to protect its civilians. If that causes the deaths of lots of Lebanese civilians, well, too damned bad. The Lebanese people need to stop their southern brethren from attacking their neighbours if they want peace.

My snivelling? You are literally tripping all over yourself to be an Israeli apologist.

You know how the terrorist justify bombing buildings? Using your logic. If it kills a bunch of innocents, as you say - TOO DAMNED BAD. 'Those Americans need to stop selling Israel weapons to use on Palestinians.' Because that is exactly how they justify it. Peaheads like you could destroy the world. It terrifies me to think how simple these people are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What would you call the beef thing? That really hurt Canada economically

Yeah, and the US was one of about a dozen countries which closed their markets to Canadian beef. Were they all making economic war on us?

the softwood lumber thing, granted it started eons ago

The trade relationship between the US and Canada is huge. Softwood is by far the biggest dispute and yet it only involves peanuts on the scale of our trade with the Americans. Besides, it's solved.

but the US is having problems cooperating on decisions made, delays in customs, creating new tariffs? Canadian manufacturers are losing HUGE profits because of it ......

Lots of countries are more protectionist than the Americans - like the Japanese, for one example, or Chinese. Cnd manufacturers are making profits because they have a free trade agreement with the US. Without that they wouldn't have many people to sell their goods to.

..........A second major barrier to the smooth flow of U.S.-Canada trade is that of security. The 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States caused greatly increased concern about U.S. domestic security, and this has significantly affected how exports from Canada and around the world enter the U.S. Security measures continue to evolve and may complicate your export business, for example by slowing traffic across the border or by requiring more preparation and documentation.............

So the yankees are obsesed with security? That doesn't sound like a trade war to me.

You dont even have to read between the lines to know that the US is taking over Canada's security, transportation and defense.

You know what you find when you look between the lines? White space! Which you can, of course, interpret however you want. If the US was concerned about Canadian security it's probably been because the previous Liberal government showed absolutely no sign of interest in the security of our borders. Fortunately, Canada's new government will likely draw much more respect and raise the comfort level down south.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh stop your snivelling. Israel has shown more than enough patience. Now it has finally been pushed beyond tolerance and is taking action to protect its civilians. If that causes the deaths of lots of Lebanese civilians, well, too damned bad. The Lebanese people need to stop their southern brethren from attacking their neighbours if they want peace.

I'm vewy curious as to how the Lebanese people (you know, the people curreently ducking IDF bombs in Beirut suburbs far away from any Hizbullah rocket launchers) are supposed to succeed where the IDF itself has failed in the past (and appears to be failing today) and what methods they are supossed to use against a heavily armed, well-disciplined and organized group like Hizbullah. Absent that particular detail, this whole plan looks like Geopolitics, Underpants Gnome style.

Step 1: Bomb Lebanon

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: No more Hizbullah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You know what you find when you look between the lines? White space! Which you can, of course, interpret however you want. If the US was concerned about Canadian security it's probably been because the previous Liberal government showed absolutely no sign of interest in the security of our borders. Fortunately, Canada's new government will likely draw much more respect and raise the comfort level down south.

Your intro here is funny, kudos.

Since this is a tangent, let me add:

You seem like a wild partisan. I think you would vote for a panda if it had a 'Conservative' sticker slapped on its back.

Raising the 'comfort level', as you put it, down South should not be our primary concern. This is not some twisted parental relationship - they need us nearly as badly as we need them. Grovelling is optional, but not in my repetoire. Harper however seems good at it.

If anything someone needs to look out for the interests of all Canadians, whatever our friend to the south is up to. The last thing we need is an American crony. Our interests diverge at many points. I do not wish to become a province of the new Rome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm vewy curious as to how the Lebanese people (you know, the people curreently ducking IDF bombs in Beirut suburbs far away from any Hizbullah rocket launchers)

You mean, Muslim Shiite suburbs, right? Apparently the Christian suburbs are quite peaceful.

are supposed to succeed where the IDF itself has failed in the past (and appears to be failing today) and what methods they are supossed to use against a heavily armed, well-disciplined and organized group like Hizbullah.

The only reason the IDF has trouble is because Hezbollah hides among the citizenry. But it isn't hiding itself from its fellow Lebanese. There are what, almost four million Lebanese. And how many Hezbollah? Five thousand? I think they can handle it. There'll be some messiness involved, of course, but far less than if the IDF went into Beirut and tried rooting them out.

They just need the will to go through that messiness. Which is what the Israelis are giving them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...