Harper joins U.S. in Iraq, with support of Liberals

616 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

It's apparently impossible to stop this childish conversation or to simply ignore trolling and derailment. Too bad.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Are we certain Pondering is a Liberal rather than a Conservative here to embarass the Liberal party? She has certainly done more to embrass the Liberals than to help their cause and this is a very interesting slip. If Pondering is a Conservative plant to make the Liberals look bad perhaps it is better to ignore her than play along -- even though the embarassment of the Liberal party is hardly a huge tragedy.

 

You wouldn't happen to be from Salem would you?;)

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
But Pondering's latest point is interesting-- she suggests that if you serve you have no right to criticize, even in retirement, the options for the use of the military.

That is quite interesting. It is of course quite in line with the lifetime silent loyalty that Harper wants from public servants. This is no minor point either as the political freedom of those working for the government is a significant distinction between the parties today.

Are we certain Pondering is a Liberal rather than a Conservative here to embarass the Liberal party? She has certainly done more to embrass the Liberals than to help their cause and this is a very interesting slip. If Pondering is a Conservative plant to make the Liberals look bad perhaps it is better to ignore her than play along -- even though the embarassment of the Liberal party is hardly a huge tragedy.

I didn't expect you to be someone who carries a grudge. There is certainly no need to start lying about me. I would have thought that technique below you. I never suggested people in the military have no right to criticize. It is Arthur who is claiming people unwilling to be in the miltary don't have the right to support military action.

If someone is a pacifist they ought not join the military because the whole point of the military is fighting. Would I go fight, or even go as an advisor, no, I wouldn't, which is why I didn't join the military. That doesn't invalidate my opinion or my support for this particular act of sending advisors and I don't think Paladin should be disrespected for wanting to go and help when he sees the brutality ISIS is visiting on people helpless to defend themselves.

Sean in Ottawa

This is your quote Pondering:

"Seeing as you find taking an advisory role so risky I'm shocked you were ever in the armed forces never mind stayed in long enough to retire from it. I can't imagine why you didn't quit right away when you found out it might include talking about fighting. Don't navy ships have guns on them? Did you think they were there just for show? Why do you think you were trained to shoot and paid to wear a uniform for decades? Wait, you were trained to shoot weren't you?

I strongly advise anyone who doesn't want to advise people about fighting, or actually fight, to not join the military. If you don't want to work with numbers, don't become an accountant."

 

There are more uses for the military than invading countries on the other side of the world. As well a person after years of service could even change their views. Your snarky remark suggests you think a person in the military should not criticize what it is used for. That is a fair reading of your quote. I think it was offensive so I commented on it.

You also got rather personal about his experience didn't you? I emphasized the part that triggered my reaction to you in the above quote in case you needed that.

Perhaps Arthur took it better than I did. Why don't you ask him?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, my point was not about your commenting on the issue of conflict and use of the military. My issue with your commentary is that you imply through it you would be comfortable with others fighting your wars for you. This has nothing to do with pacifisim. This has to do with apparently being willing to support the use at some point of miitary combat force when you would advise those near and dear to you not to enlist. How can you support the use of intevention when you think those who matter to you shouldn't partake? Am I reading your commentary correctly?

 I don't have any use for someone who advocates the use of force but doesn't feel that those that matter to them should partake. In the US, they call people with that kind of attitude, Chickenhawks. So, are you a Chickenhawk, or not? You can't be a Pacifist and a Chickenhawk; you can be one or the other. Back to you.

Sean, thanks for your support. You get it and I am grateful. Its about Service to country and fellow Citizen.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Let me know when you people want to discuss something other than Pondering. I might be interested in joining in.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Let me know when you people want to discuss something other than Pondering. I might be interested in joining in.

Forget it. Recess isn't over yet.

swallow swallow's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I hate the fact that all the media coverage down plays anything to do about Syria in this conflict.  The Eastern part of Syria is under the control of this group and our government with the support of the Opposition is still trying to overthrow the elected government. The Syrians under the control of ISIS are just as vunerable to the atrocities that have been reported.  They bleed and die when beheaded just like a Kurd or Iraqi.

What I would like my government to do about the situation in Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan where ISIS is attacking the democratically chosen governments of Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan is stop the sanctions against Syria and withdraw all support from any anti-Syrian fighters in Eastern Syria.  At the same time they should urge the FSA to accept an immediate ceasefire and thus allow the Syrian government to send its best troops east to meet this threat to its soverignity and its people lives. Free up the Syrian army that is being pinned down by Western backed insurgents and I think they might be a match for the hardened fighters in ISIS.

Will you be our foreign minister, please? 

Webgear

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I hate the fact that all the media coverage down plays anything to do about Syria in this conflict.  The Eastern part of Syria is under the control of this group and our government with the support of the Opposition is still trying to overthrow the elected government. The Syrians under the control of ISIS are just as vunerable to the atrocities that have been reported.  They bleed and die when beheaded just like a Kurd or Iraqi.

What I would like my government to do about the situation in Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan where ISIS is attacking the democratically chosen governments of Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan is stop the sanctions against Syria and withdraw all support from any anti-Syrian fighters in Eastern Syria.  At the same time they should urge the FSA to accept an immediate ceasefire and thus allow the Syrian government to send its best troops east to meet this threat to its soverignity and its people lives. Free up the Syrian army that is being pinned down by Western backed insurgents and I think they might be a match for the hardened fighters in ISIS.

 

I agree completely, this is a well thought out course of action. 

cco

Okay. This issue is a complicated one for me, and I'm probably going to get roasted from all sides for it. So I'll try to just lay out my thinking, and then everyone can tell me why I'm wrong.

For starters. Do I believe the US was right to invade Iraq? No. Afghanistan? No. Libya? No. Provide weapons to anyone in Syria? No. Not that anyone cares about my bona fides, but I flew up to DC while still in high school to protest the Iraq war before it began, and have protested about every Western war since. In fact, over the past three years, my loudest complaint has been that arming Syrian "freedom fighters" was likely to produce this exact situation.

Is wanting to "save" Yazidis from the same horrors we gladly support the Saudi government committing a case of Western moral hypocrisy at its worst? Absolutely.

Are Harper and Obama untrustworthy warmongers who sow death and destruction wherever they poke their fingers? One hundred per cent.

Do I trust the mainstream media (be they CBC, al-Jazeera, or even al-Manar)? Not a chance.

And yet.

I will freely admit that I'm too close to this situation to be truly objective. ISIS/ISIL/IS/QSIS, hereinafter Da'ash (it has a bit of a double meaning in Arabic), are directly threatening members of my wife's family (mostly in Syria, but they've also made pushes into Jordan and Lebanon) with brutal execution. It's not exactly a secret on this forum that her family and I share some difficult history, but I don't want to see her aunts and cousins slaughtered.

Da'ash are the personification of everything I've ever despised about brutal religious fundamentalists, freshly armed with American weapons due to a decade of idiotic policy, and headed to massacre my in-laws. So when my wife's aunt calls us from Homs with the terror in her voice of someone who knows she's soon in line to be crucified, it's hard for me to just write that branch of the family off as the inevitable casualties of 11 years of Bush/Obama misadventures.

I don't think Da'ash are a serious threat to Canada. They're no more the boogeyman than any other number of genocidal groups on the planet. And I certainly don't think Canadian boots on the ground are there out of love for the locals. Nor am I very optimistic about the constantly-shifting strategie du jour that involves the West trying to invent some kind of mythological Third Force that will overthrow both Assad and Da'ash and create Switzerland in as-Sham.

All I can really say is that if I were on the ground in Homs, and Da'ash were surrounding my city with their new American Humvees, ready to come in and slaughter anyone who doesn't conform to their version of Islam, I would still beg the Americans to blow them into oblivion. And so I'm not so much outraged by the latest bombings as I am nauseous that Bush finally managed to create the then-nonexistent enemy he tried to get us all psyched up to destroy in 2003.

Absolute non-interventionism is an absolutely defensible position, and I understand it completely. But I have trouble stomaching the idea of just stepping back and letting Da'ash massacre their way into being the next Near Eastern empire of blood and plunder that the US will one day ally with just as it does with the House of Saud.

Unionist

It has apparently not yet occurred to you, cco, that if these people have popular support, they will prevail, and if they don't, they will lose.

Harper and Obama will be exactly as effective in making a difference as the U.S. and its allies' massive war machine was in Southeast Asia in the 60s and 70s. As the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. As the U.S. and its allies have been to date in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya...

Of course I sympathize with your wife's relatives. But your view that Harper and Obama can stop the slaughter is pretty ahistorical. And, ultimately, unbelievably dangerous.

I say this with respect.

 

cco

Respect back to you, Unionist, and thank you for not assuming imperialist pro-Bushite motives on my part. I think there's room for honest discussion here. And I don't think Harper and Obama are going to end up saving very many people -- in fact, I think kropotkin's plan is the sanest I've heard all week.

I can't agree with your global position that he (and it's always, always a he) who has the most popular support will inevitably win. The amount of weaponry one has seems to me to be a pretty heavy factor as well. (Yet another reason I've been objecting as loudly as possible about the horrifying idea of arming the Syrian "rebels".) But even if I did agree, if the local population supports the extermination of everyone who's not a Wahhabi, I'm afraid my belief in popular sovereignty doesn't extend that far, any more than I'd have supported a Dominionist government in Tennessee, which the majority would likely happily go along with if it got rid of those pesky people like my parents.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
This has to do with apparently being willing to support the use at some point of miitary combat force when you would advise those near and dear to you not to enlist. How can you support the use of intevention when you think those who matter to you shouldn't partake? Am I reading your commentary correctly?

Not exactly. I would advise anyone and everyone not to enlist not just people near and dear to me. 

I thought the peacekeeping stuff was great until I learned more about how it works in practice. I want us to get out of the arms industry. Theoretically I would like us to leave other countries/regions to have their own civil wars. I understand that the doctrine of the duty to protect is abused to pick and choose which regimes get supported or don't and it's not based on human rights. I can see that the Western world betrayed the Egyptian protesters.I get that we have armed all sides and done incaculatable harm in the mid-East and elsewhere. I would like us to be more like Switzerland if that is the country that is always neutral. I'd like our military to be focused on search and rescue and defense of Canadian land and never go anywhere. That isn't the reality.

When someone signs up for the military they know this. I support the American soldiers who deserted based on opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I'd even support someone who quit based on discovering they were terrified. But to say no one should go because it's dangerous, well, that is the point of having a military and the Kurds want our help.

Some people here seem to be insinuating that the threat of ISIS is being exagerated. Maybe that is true but it doesn't seem that way to me, and so far we are just at advisors not combat troops. You say it will escalate to ground troops and I don't say you are wrong. I would probably have a problem with that. I support help with equipment, advisors and humanitarian aid.

I have no clue how to solve the conflicts in the mid East or anywhere else in the world. Sometimes I see it the way Paladin sees it. The Kurds are desperate. Men are being murdered, women raped and sold, the old and the young suffering unspeakable torture. Sending advisors and equipment is not an unreasonable response.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote in part:

"But to say no one should go because it's dangerous, well, that is the point of having a military and the Kurds want our help"

That is not my point, Pondering. My point is that I am opposed to the lives of young men and women being wasted on completely useless conflict around the world. That has been a consistent point i have made in each and every one of my posts. I say it again Pondering, I have personal expereince with this, and I know what this is about. Again, what would you say to the spouse of a military member who came into your office to ask why you were sending their spouse off to die in war? Try thinking about that. I'll tell you one thing, there is no good answer to that question.

I'll say it again, either everyone goes, or no one goes. You simply can't advocate for intervetion if you won't go all the way. Its pretty simple; there is no rocket science involved in this.

thorin_bane

Art my suggestion is to just start ignoring Pondering. Spedn your time more wisely on the issues at hand and not getting drawn in to useless debate who are at odds with. I am doing my best to resist.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

thorin_bane wrote:

Art my suggestion is to just start ignoring Pondering. Spedn your time more wisely on the issues at hand and not getting drawn in to useless debate who are at odds with. I am doing my best to resist.

Sage advice and in the nick of thyme.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

thorin_bane wrote:

Art my suggestion is to just start ignoring Pondering. Spedn your time more wisely on the issues at hand and not getting drawn in to useless debate who are at odds with. I am doing my best to resist.

I know. But it makes me very mad when someone talks about action that will eventually lead to boots on the ground, but has no interest in remining people close to them that there is a price for that and they should go to. Its just like in the US. As I outlined above, I have real experience with this and know exactly what this is about. It gets under my skin. I'll do my best. Thanks for the remidner. I ALWAYS appreciate your posts. K, you have been on a tear as well.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote in part:

"But to say no one should go because it's dangerous, well, that is the point of having a military and the Kurds want our help"

That is not my point, Pondering. My point is that I am opposed to the lives of young men and women being wasted on completely useless conflict around the world. That has been a consistent point i have made in each and every one of my posts. I say it again Pondering, I have personal expereince with this, and I know what this is about. Again, what would you say to the spouse of a military member who came into your office to ask why you were sending their spouse off to die in war? Try thinking about that. I'll tell you one thing, there is no good answer to that question.

I'll say it again, either everyone goes, or no one goes. You simply can't advocate for intervetion if you won't go all the way. Its pretty simple; there is no rocket science involved in this.

I don't think the advisors lives are going to be at risk. I would suggest that their spouse quits the military and I would support them in that decision.

No one who is unwilling to fight should be forced to or be disrespected for being unwilling to but they also shouldn't be in the military. I don't think that because some people are willing to fight that everyone must be. I'm not willing to be a police officer either but I still expect them to face the criminals. The military doesn't get to make the decisions on where they participate. That is a political decison that all citizens have a right to have an opinion on.

thorin_bane

Arthur Cramer wrote:

thorin_bane wrote:

Art my suggestion is to just start ignoring Pondering. Spedn your time more wisely on the issues at hand and not getting drawn in to useless debate who are at odds with. I am doing my best to resist.

I know. But it makes me very mad when someone talks about action that will eventually lead to boots on the ground, but has no interest in remining people close to them that there is a price for that and they should go to. Its just like in the US. As I outlined above, I have real experience with this and know exactly what this is about. It gets under my skin. I'll do my best. Thanks for the remidner. I ALWAYS appreciate your posts. K, you have been on a tear as well.

I know I've been pissed off myself. ANd even Sean is having problems holding his shit together. While they are likely chuckling behind their keyboards at what a mess they have made of the board. I may or may not take some time away. But my suggestion is good regardless. If we don't respond to their post, and I know we will. Eventually they will go away. Or get banned for spam if they do something really rediculous.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, I read you last post. It was all double speak. The last thing you are is a Pacifist.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Pondering, I read you last post. It was all double speak. The last thing you are is a Pacifist.

I've never claimed to ber a pacifist. As long as people are capable of horrific violence hopefully other people will be willing to stop them. I am not one of those people. I would likely pass out if I ever shot anyone. I'm good in an emergency but the second it's over I faint. I also faint if I am too hot, dehydrated, or stressed about an upcoming event. I was 96 lbs almost my entire life. Soldier material I am not. Everyone has their own talents and weaknesses that more or less limits their abilities. That doesn't invalidate my opinion. If that were true only the military could decide where and when they would act.

As to my post being doublespeak, I do have very conflicted feelings over it. I am generally against intervention but in this particular case offering logistical support in the form of advisors seems very reasonable to me. I don't believe that Harper will be offering combat troops.

iyraste1313

 offering logistical support in the form of advisors seems very reasonable to me. ....

I believe that would be grounds for charging canada with crimes against the Peace as laid out in the Nuremburg and Rome conventions...which were an attempt to end the naked agressions of imperialist monsters throughout history to bring the world to a higher state of civilization?

But of course this is all a thing of the past as we are now in the darkest ages of horrific agressions globally...

I was under the impression that the readers of this service were of a progressive bent, obviously untrue!

The Islamic State? To pull the plug on this movement we just need to stop supporting them with equipment, trade, advisors and training.

What is clear is that we are supporting them while pretending to be aghast at their barbarity, which ultimately is our barbarity!

Pondering

iyraste1313 wrote:

 offering logistical support in the form of advisors seems very reasonable to me. ....

I believe that would be grounds for charging canada with crimes against the Peace as laid out in the Nuremburg and Rome conventions...which were an attempt to end the naked agressions of imperialist monsters throughout history to bring the world to a higher state of civilization?

But of course this is all a thing of the past as we are now in the darkest ages of horrific agressions globally...

I was under the impression that the readers of this service were of a progressive bent, obviously untrue!

The Islamic State? To pull the plug on this movement we just need to stop supporting them with equipment, trade, advisors and training.

What is clear is that we are supporting them while pretending to be aghast at their barbarity, which ultimately is our barbarity!

So you think we should just leave the Kurds to their own devices? That's the only progressive option?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So Pondering what did you think of my suggestion that does not require us to interfere militarily?  Why are you not demanding we do something for the people of Eastern Syria. Do they not count in your mind? 

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
So Pondering what did you think of my suggestion that does not require us to interfere militarily?  Why are you not demanding we do something for the people of Eastern Syria. Do they not count in your mind?

Of course they matter. There is no one size fits all solution to world conflict that I'm aware of. It's just my opinion but I consider the situation quite complex.

Nor am I demanding anything. I am simply saying I agree with the decision to send advisors and to support the Kurds. I don't believe that there is any risk to the lives of the advisors.

 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:
I don't believe that Harper will be offering combat troops.

Next time we're planning a picnic, we'll know whom not to ask for a weather forecast.

 

Pondering

I should have just quoted this post:

cco wrote:

Okay. This issue is a complicated one for me, and I'm probably going to get roasted from all sides for it. So I'll try to just lay out my thinking, and then everyone can tell me why I'm wrong.

For starters. Do I believe the US was right to invade Iraq? No. Afghanistan? No. Libya? No. Provide weapons to anyone in Syria? No. Not that anyone cares about my bona fides, but I flew up to DC while still in high school to protest the Iraq war before it began, and have protested about every Western war since. In fact, over the past three years, my loudest complaint has been that arming Syrian "freedom fighters" was likely to produce this exact situation.

Is wanting to "save" Yazidis from the same horrors we gladly support the Saudi government committing a case of Western moral hypocrisy at its worst? Absolutely.

Are Harper and Obama untrustworthy warmongers who sow death and destruction wherever they poke their fingers? One hundred per cent.

Do I trust the mainstream media (be they CBC, al-Jazeera, or even al-Manar)? Not a chance.

And yet.

I will freely admit that I'm too close to this situation to be truly objective. ISIS/ISIL/IS/QSIS, hereinafter Da'ash (it has a bit of a double meaning in Arabic), are directly threatening members of my wife's family (mostly in Syria, but they've also made pushes into Jordan and Lebanon) with brutal execution. It's not exactly a secret on this forum that her family and I share some difficult history, but I don't want to see her aunts and cousins slaughtered.

Da'ash are the personification of everything I've ever despised about brutal religious fundamentalists, freshly armed with American weapons due to a decade of idiotic policy, and headed to massacre my in-laws. So when my wife's aunt calls us from Homs with the terror in her voice of someone who knows she's soon in line to be crucified, it's hard for me to just write that branch of the family off as the inevitable casualties of 11 years of Bush/Obama misadventures.

I don't think Da'ash are a serious threat to Canada. They're no more the boogeyman than any other number of genocidal groups on the planet. And I certainly don't think Canadian boots on the ground are there out of love for the locals. Nor am I very optimistic about the constantly-shifting strategie du jour that involves the West trying to invent some kind of mythological Third Force that will overthrow both Assad and Da'ash and create Switzerland in as-Sham.

All I can really say is that if I were on the ground in Homs, and Da'ash were surrounding my city with their new American Humvees, ready to come in and slaughter anyone who doesn't conform to their version of Islam, I would still beg the Americans to blow them into oblivion. And so I'm not so much outraged by the latest bombings as I am nauseous that Bush finally managed to create the then-nonexistent enemy he tried to get us all psyched up to destroy in 2003.

Absolute non-interventionism is an absolutely defensible position, and I understand it completely. But I have trouble stomaching the idea of just stepping back and letting Da'ash massacre their way into being the next Near Eastern empire of blood and plunder that the US will one day ally with just as it does with the House of Saud.

I'm less informed than CCO but I agree with the sentiment.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
What I would like my government to do about the situation in Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan where ISIS is attacking the democratically chosen governments of Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan is stop the sanctions against Syria and withdraw all support from any anti-Syrian fighters in Eastern Syria.  At the same time they should urge the FSA to accept an immediate ceasefire and thus allow the Syrian government to send its best troops east to meet this threat to its soverignity and its people lives. Free up the Syrian army that is being pinned down by Western backed insurgents and I think they might be a match for the hardened fighters in ISIS.

I probably agree with the above but hesitate to confirm because I don't know enough about the situation in Syria. I don't know who the FSA is or why they are rebeling. It's also not an either or situation. What you are suggesting can be done while still sending advisors to Iraq and helping the Kurds.

Paladin1

It could be semantics but for clairities sake the advisors we are sending to Iraq are among Canada's smartest, most physically fit, best equipped and deadliest soldiers. They've been called a cross between the US Special Forces (green berets) and US Army Rangers.

It may be more accurate to suggest Mr Harper won't be sending Canadian soldiers into a combat role.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

I probably agree with the above but hesitate to confirm because I don't know enough about the situation in Syria. I don't know who the FSA is or why they are rebeling.

Your ignorance of topics you want to discuss seems to be boundless. Try reading something before you opine on issues you admit you know nothing about.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I probably agree with the above but hesitate to confirm because I don't know enough about the situation in Syria. I don't know who the FSA is or why they are rebeling.

Your ignorance of topics you want to discuss seems to be boundless. Try reading something before you opine on issues you admit you know nothing about.

Regardless of the depth of my knowledge as a member of the general public it is still my opinion along with the opinons of millions of other people who have not studied progressive causes that ultimately determine what our leaders have the political cover to do.

As long as the left continues to be elitist they will lose.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You win Pondering.  I'm gone. Fuck you and fuck the babble moderators for allowing you to control the board day after day. 

The one place where left wing people could discuss things from a left perspective is no longer a place for doing that instead it is a place to be attacked for having actual knowledge about world affairs.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Yes, we must abolish the man or woman who takes orders to kill from a superior authority. Miltaries, as they disband in the hopeful future, must take a defensive posture now.

Yet we cannot go from that state directly from here. Some criminal charges from the International Court in The Hague should proceed. The UN needs to put sanctions on ISIS.

What we want to do as people is catch the bad guys and lock them up. Vengeance is not ours, because we always get vengeance wrong, either too much or too little. As we de-escalate from a violent world to a peaceful world, we need to look at it as a case of the people of the world trying to catch murderers and lock them up. We do not need to kill, if we are all of the same mind about this.

If someone kills, we need to catch them and give them a public trial. Then, as best as possible, the truth is known. if ISIS is unaccepable to the world, the world should act in concert.

NDPP

Obama's War on Iraq and Syria  -  by Barry Grey

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/10/pers-s10.html

"President Barack Obama will use his nationally televised speech tonight to officially announce what has already begun: a new US war in Iraq that will soon be extended to Syria.

The man who ran for president in 2005 as an opponent of Bush's war in Iraq is, like his predecessor, seeking to justify American military violence in that tortured land and its extension into Syria with deceit and lies.

ISIS is a creation of the United States...In Syria the organization was directly and indirectly armed and trained by the CIA as the spearhead of the US drive to overthrow the pro-Russian and pro-Iranian regime of Bashar al Assad and replace it with a US puppet government..."

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
You win Pondering.  I'm gone. Fuck you and fuck the babble moderators for allowing you to control the board day after day. 

The one place where left wing people could discuss things from a left perspective is no longer a place for doing that instead it is a place to be attacked for having actual knowledge about world affairs.

I don't control the board and I have never attacked anyone for having knowledge. I do reject the notion that anyone who isn't a political junkie and activist is your inferior and should just fall in line and not have opinions.

I have a new nephew-in-law (extreme right libertarian type) that thinks he's right because he took political science. Should I just bow to his superior knowledge? Paladin1 is/was a soldier and knows all about weapons so I suppose I shouldn't have an opinion about that either?

Many people don't vote because they feel they don't know enough. Many agree with the politicians who believe they are elected to make the decisions because they know best. Many agree that the economy and foreign affairs are so beyond their understanding that they can't possibly formulate an intelligent opinon therefore it is up to the politicians and experts like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to figure it out.

I reject these notions. Whomever finds a way to connect with the masses wins.

 

 

NDPP

montrealer58 wrote:

If someone kills, we need to catch them and give them a public trial. Then, as best as possible, the truth is known. if ISIS is unaccepable to the world, the world should act in concert.

I suggest a slight alteration for a truly effective solution to the war of terror problem:

"...If [USA] is unacceptable to the world, the world should act in concert."

It is. We should. And their advocates, proxies and compradors here as well.

 

ps: would be truly sorry to see you go Krop. So many have left and for similar reasons. Here's hoping you'll 'reserve decision' hang on a bit and continue to defend this redoubt under siege...

 

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You win Pondering.  I'm gone. Fuck you and fuck the babble moderators for allowing you to control the board day after day. 

The one place where left wing people could discuss things from a left perspective is no longer a place for doing that instead it is a place to be attacked for having actual knowledge about world affairs.

Stick around, krop. Nature has a way of cleansing itself of pollutants, even when humans are slow to act. We strongly need you here.

[url=http://youtu.be/ebtC3ORg9fU]All Things Must Pass[/url]

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

NDPP wrote:

ps: would be truly sorry to see you go Krop. So many have left and for similar reasons. Here's hoping you'll 'reserve decision' hang on a bit and continue to defend this redoubt under siege...

 

I whole heartedly agree. Sometimes it feels like the left in general has been beaten into submission or just resorted to some lulled SOMA existence where we accept perpetual wars as the status quo.

This ISIL mess is a result of western meddling. Blowback pure and simple. But more galling than that is to hear Obama justify his military agression as vengence for the lives of two journalists who were unfortunately publicly (via video) beheaded. This after the western world stood by and watched Israel mow down and kill 2000+ Palestinians in the course of 6 weeks (most of them innocent civilians, many of them children) without barely a word of condemnation.

The contrasts in what gets defined as gross misconduct/crimes against humanity has become so absurd that it's hard not to give up and dwell in a perpetual state of jaundiced cynicism.

Given the lack of mass scale resistance to recent illegitimate and grotesque adventures in regime change in Libya and Syria (and in a more covert way, Ukraine), it's hard to find any political movement/party that offers hope and potential solutions. I will continue to support grass roots efforts to stop these inhumane aggressions but I am bitterly disappointed at how fringe these have become.

thorin_bane

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You win Pondering.  I'm gone. Fuck you and fuck the babble moderators for allowing you to control the board day after day. 

The one place where left wing people could discuss things from a left perspective is no longer a place for doing that instead it is a place to be attacked for having actual knowledge about world affairs.

Don't worry I took months off and nothing has changed. You won't miss much. Fact is for the last 3 weeks that I have been here, there hasn't been a proper discussion on much at all. Ateempts yes, but usually derailed pretty quick.

A lot of the people like Remind and Jan gone.  Enmasse is pretty dead too. Sad about the split and then this place just getting to this point.

Wish you luck but your input would help.

Aristotleded24

thorin_bane wrote:
A lot of the people like Remind and Jan gone.  Enmasse is pretty dead too. Sad about the split and then this place just getting to this point.

Times do change, unfortunately. I remember a time when you could hardly go even a few hours without a new post or topic in just about every section of the board, and now certain areas haven't seen activity for weeks. I guess Facebook and Twitter and MSM sites opening up their articles to commenting have all taken their toll. And people inevitably move on with their lives.

Makes me sad to think about this, but what can you do?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Krop, stick around. Don't give Pondering the satisfaction.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, how can you accuse others of being elitist? You have wirtten that Canada should help the Kurds, but that no one should expect you to have ever considered stepping up to do so. What is more elitist then to tell everyone that you and those close to you are too valuable to go oeverseas. Cue, usual rebuttal. Well, my answer is yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever Pondering.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

So you think we should just leave the Kurds to their own devices? That's the only progressive option?

Another option for Canada would be to leave NATO and look to the UN as the sole legitimate arbiter for international conflict.

Paladin1

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, how can you accuse others of being elitist? You have wirtten that Canada should help the Kurds, but that no one should expect you to have ever considered stepping up to do so. What is more elitist then to tell everyone that you and those close to you are too valuable to go oeverseas. Cue, usual rebuttal. Well, my answer is yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever Pondering.

 

My friend if I may, I don't think Pondering is pulling a typical politician voting for war but refusing to send their kids/trying to say they are too important themselves to goto war.   I could be wrong but I think Pondering is just conscientious of the fact that she is not a soldier and she would do more harm than good if you were to put a backpack weighting as much as she does (actually more) on her back putting an assault rifle in her hands and sending her to Iraq.  She just recognizes *she* is not a fighter, but still see's the need for them.

Unlike many of our peers, I have a lot of time (and respect) for consiencious objectors, "draft dodgers" and people who refuse to support a war. While I may think they're wrong (situation depending) I also think it's courageous and displays a level of awareness.

Paladin1

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

So you think we should just leave the Kurds to their own devices? That's the only progressive option?

Another option for Canada would be to leave NATO and look to the UN as the sole legitimate arbiter for international conflict.

 

Unfortinuately no one respects the UN anymore. It was a great idea in theory but in practice it's severly lacking. The UN doesn't save lives.  If Canada were to pull out of NATO we would lose any political clout we have and gain none from being just in the UN.

swallow swallow's picture

The UN saves plenty of lives - Unicef alone does that, as do many of the UN's agencies. No, it has not been successful in maintining global security - which is the fault of ther Security Council and its' members, not the rest of the UN. 

Kropotkin, I always learn from your posts. There may be a topic for reactions forum here....

Paladin1

swallow wrote:

The UN saves plenty of lives - Unicef alone does that, as do many of the UN's agencies. No, it has not been successful in maintining global security - which is the fault of ther Security Council and its' members, not the rest of the UN. 

Kropotkin, I always learn from your posts. There may be a topic for reactions forum here....

 

Sorry you're 100% correct I was narrow-minded in my statement, security wise it's not successful but I overlooked what you said.

iyraste1313

So you think we should just leave the Kurds to their own devices? That's the only progressive option?

It would be useful to see more discussions on the role of the West and their zionists partner in the creation and ongoing support for the Islamic State, so called!

As an activist I have little time to do the research re Canada´s support, for example of IS group in Syria, the so called moderate group of the Government´s opposition. Certainly their mouthpiece the CBC has an ongoing history of quotes from such IS groups in their supposedly objective news reporting...

If Canada wishes to shut down the IS, e.g. in Syria, they must enter into a cooperative agreement with the Syrian Government which I believe just received 63% of the vote of support....but of course this would be tricky for the CBC to do an about face...

But of course I´m sure the CBC executives are familiar with Orwell´s work, one moment we support one side, the next the other!

The progressive option is to strongly hunt down the supporters of the IS and sanction them, including the USA, Israel and all its charitable support network here in Canada, not to mention the complicity of the CBC!

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

  I'm gone. Fuck you and fuck the babble moderators for allowing you to control the board day after day.

Sorry but you know you're not leaving. I'm pretty sure this hasn't been the first time you said you would leave either. Instead of putting a fellow poster on the spot "I'm leaving because of so and so" why don't you just ignore her.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Paladin, the UN is not what we would wish for it to be, but it is the only thing we have which remotely can have input from everyone in the world. The art of politics is not smash and destroy, but go in with stealth and try to make it better. 

If all of the world's people were of a same mind, and could somehow mystically (or technologically) choose an organization to defend them, it would likely be the U.N. Please study the UN Declaration of Human Rights. In my opinion, that is worth fighting for, so vehement it is against torture and slavery. Torture and slavery have been conveniently forgotten by all of our religions, and it is nice to see an organization of human beings putting no torture and no slavery in the top 5 principles. If we support the UN, it will work better. Start making contacts into there. Move it. I like Oxfam and Medicins sans Frontiers too, but they are one-trick ponies. A democratic government with significant protections is a great model for global authority.

The current system at the U.N. still recognizes the victors in WW2, and does not reflect modern reality. People forget that after the "Allies" called themselves "The Allies", they called themselves "The United Nations" because "The Allies" wanted to exclude the U.S.S.R. The permanent presence of the U.K. and France is a bit of a joke, and would probably tend to weight it too much to "White Secularlism". You can't really call them "Christian" as that is not how people identify themselves these days. In Holland, 82% of attending Catholics do so for social and familal pressure, and not belief.

Like good parents, it will take time to remove the rattle from the squalling brats. In terms of population, the 5 permanent members would be China, India, United States, Indonesia and Brazil. Already, we have China and the United States. Israel would still get its veto through the United States, so this shuffle could go through without too much protest from the Zionist lobby. As far as Moslem, Christian, Hindu, and Pagan, the 5 states listed above would have a good balance, with Indonesia and India respectively, Brazil and the United States repectively, and India and the United States again. Atheism would be well represented by China. The USA is the defacto leader of NATO, and as such it would get one voice out of 5.

Of course, what is missing in the above picture is Europe. All Europe seems to be known for in the last 500 years is war. Why should we trust them with any power? The greatest evils in terms of ideologies have sprung from there. The world does not need Europe.

Economically, Europe is now the world's largest, now surpassing the economy of the United States by about a trillion a year. In a unity, it would have a population over 500 million. Inserting it, however, would be too much of an expression of white power in my opinion.

It would be so cool to get world elections going for the UN, and I hope to see that before I die. Like everything else, we would have to ease into it. First, we could elect our own delegates. Then, we could have a world election for the rotating members of the Security Council. Where there is voting, there tends not to be war. Democratically progressive countries should lead the way.

Sean in Ottawa

I don't agree --extend this to 9 countries and you get a more realistic balance. Leaving out Europe would lead to a disregard fro that body that could only lead to trouble.

The five you mention plus:

6) A single spot for Europe -- European Union. Europe has a half a billion people and they have an authority through their union that can speak for them. They even have a parliament.

7) Russia. At 142 Million Russia with its extended influence should be represented.

8) Either Nigeria with its 178 million people or the Organization of African States must be included. You can't leave out a whole continent like that. Africa has been screwed by the rest of the world too often. If you are to make a change bring them in or forget any credibility to the UN.

9) Pakistan with almost as many people as Brazil ought to be included and remembering that India is included.

If you wanted to go to 11 the next two are Japan and Mexico.

Lastly becuase of the environment there could be an argument to include some organization of island states.

The top five countries does not cut it in my view. 11 Countries may give a better perspective and context to the big ones rather than a small gang of five anyway.

***

I came in for this post  as I thought it was important-- I share the frustration of others with the current direction of this site - not sure what to say other than I did not post yesterday and doubt I'll post tomorrow... It really has titled away from being a progressive site. If you don't challenge the non- progressive posts it is just another mainstream site and if you engage them the few other progressives will complain that you are giving them air. Forgetting the whole thing seems to make more sense.

 

 

Pages

Topic locked