New Democrats Call for End to Military Mission in Libya

Good, they should never have approved it in the first place!

A nice baby step in the right direction.  When it stops telling Libyans who their government should be I will believe the NDP gets it.  Who does De-war think he is to decide who should be in charge in Libya?  All he had to do was say the NDP wants to see a cease fire in place immediately so that Libyans can work out a peaceful way forward.  He is still taking sides in an another countries internal dispute.

Yes and no comments on Bahrain or Palestine.  Ready Aye Ready is the ticket for Mr. De-war.

Seems to me those numbers are not confirmed and are likely inflated much as the numbers leading up to the bombing of Libya were overcooked for propaganda purposes  I have no idea how many people have been killed by the regime there but I doubt if there is much difference between the treatment of dissidents in Syria and dissidents in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia is currently occupying that country using armoured cars designed for civilian control built in Canada.  But then we can't talk about that because someone might mention that Bahrain is a critical base for NATO armed forces.

The NDP calls for action against repressive governments are based solely on the countries relationship to NATO.  They like all social democratic parties in the NATO alliance are just fine with "their" brutal dictators oppressing the people, after all they are our bastards. 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26414.htm

After a few thousand NDP-approved bombing attacks, Dewar is playing the GW Bush "Mission Accomplished" scam with equal credibility.

And like the 1st Iraq war, with its "babies thrown from incubator" propaganda lie, the NDP has played the "Gaddafi's Viagra-fueled rape squads--sex-weapon-of-war" discredited lie to the hilt to justify its murderous pandering to the Harper regime's fawning press.

Paul Do-War!

Yup we should never have interfered with that Belgium-German issue in 1914 or the German Polish situation in 1939

Nice try but no. I do not believe we should be in Libya at all(except to evacuate cdn citizens and accept fleeing refugees) but I cannot extrapolate that into never getting involved in the world at all, as Frmsldr says. Except through the UN which would, of course, allow for the korean war regardless of civilian casualties and the Iraq war I

Apparently the fact that it would have been ok if Hitler had won or the Kaiser (tho that was a far more stupid war that WW2 IMO) as long as no one else got involved. Cuz that worked so well for Stalin wwhen he did it

Or Korea 1950-53 or Iraq 1990-91 or Kosovo 1999.

Yup in 1914, Canada was still a colony/part of the British Empire and had no choice or say in the matter. By 1939 Canada was a Dominion and (presumably) had the freedom to make such decisions. In neither case did Germany attack or invade Canada or attack the Canadian military overseas prior to Canada joining those wars.

In the case of the U.S.A., Germany did not invade or attack the U.S. either in WW 1 or 2.

By 1940, attempts to overcome the Great Depression had failed. By then Roosevelt had come to the conclusion that the way out of the Depression was war.

To that end, Roosevelt played a game of chicken with nazi Germany and fascist Japan and the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and merchant marine:

Lend Lease, providing escort for ships carrying supplies to the U.K. First supplies were carried in British merchant ships, then American. American vessels first sailed to the 200 nautical mile U.S. coastal water limit, then to a half-way limit south of Greenland, then all the way to the U.K.

In Asia Pacific, U.S. Navy ships would sail to Singapore and Indonesia and wherever else Imperial Japanese Navy ships were deploying. While Japan was waging war on China, U.S. destroyers and patrol boats were sailing in the Yangtze, Yellow and Pearl rivers, remember the Panay?

The orders were: "Don't initiate combat. If fired upon first, fire back in self-defense."

The 1940 U.S. embargo of oil, iron ore, steel, bauxite, aluminum, rubber, etc., was intended to hit Japan hard. It did.

By these means it was only a matter of time before either Germany or Japan went "too far" and "attacked" American forces oversees or attacked America.

We all know from history that Japan attacked a U.S. overseas military base, Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. As we can also see, Pearl Harbor was an 'inside job' with Uncle Sam doing all he could to force Japan's hand into war against the U.S.A.

In backing up his fellow Axis partner, Hitler did Roosevelt the favor of declaring war against the U.S. Roosevelt got what he wanted, America's entry in World War 2 on both the (Western) European and Asia-Pacific Theaters of war.

That sends the wrong message:

That it is not the act of a War of Aggression that is wrong

but the actors who are right or wrong, good or bad: those who are waging the War of Aggression.

Such moral relativism doesn't fly.

We are going to achieve peace and end war through (more) war.

Crudely put that is the (unofficial) NATO motto.

That is the reasoning behind R2P/D2P.

Hmm No, what I said was ok is when one of the countries involved in a war asks for the U.N. to assist in negotiating a peaceful settlement (i.e., use peaceful means to end a war.)

What is not ok is when the U.S. and other countries and (sometimes) NATO with or without ISAF to invite themselves through the U.N. rubberstamping as a result of Security Council bullying to pick a side, attack, invade, occupy and wage war on a country or countries and thus use war and violence to further escalate war and violence under the pretext that "war is peace."

If you are defending your own house, your own family, your own community and your own country, that is a war of defense.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves.

It is only when you cross your country's border, cross over the border(s) of (an)other country/countries as Adolf and his Luftwaffe and Wermacht did when they (metaphorically speaking) 'bombed your house': when you are attacking, invading, occupying and waging a War of Aggression on (an)other country/countries, or bombing other peoples' houses; that is when war is morally and legally unacceptable.

Moammar Gadhafi did neither.

He neither attacked U.S., E.U., Canadian or any other countries' homes or military bases or personnel overseas.

Nor did he attack any civilians or civilian populated areas in Libya.

At best he only threatened(?) to do so in one of his rambling, sometimes semi-delusional speeches.

A threat that has since never materialized, though there was plenty of opportunity.

So far, those who have committed the worst atrocities are NATO through its bombing of cities and killing and injuring innocent civilians.

And (some of) the rebel forces who have murdered civilians who were or were suspected of working for the Libyan spy agency, police and/or prisons where torture was involved. There have also been reports of (some) rebels murdering captured government forces troops.

There is no such thing as a "Just War."

One is only justified in defending oneself.

No one is justified in attacking another.

That is the myth of World War 2 as the "Just War."

Prior to Canada's entry into the war Germany and Italy did not attack or invade Canada nor attack Canada's military overseas.

As Major General Smedley Butler put it, war is a racket. It's all about the arms industry earning a profit.

We have seen above how Roosevelt played his devious 'Game of Chicken' with Nazi German and Imperial Japanese forces in the hopes that either a significant incident between U.S. and German and/or Japanese forces or enough U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine sailors would die over time, so that American public opinion would be swayed in favor of entering the war.

Roosevelt believed that war would end the Great Depression in the U.S.A.

In the end, war came when the 1940 U.S. embargo of strategic resources on Japan forced Japan's hand - which was the intent.

I can see how the Japanese invasion of Malaya, Singapore, Thailand (Siam), Burma and Hong Kong and the subsequent Japanese attacks against the U.K. military and citizens posted or living there would bring the U.K. into a war against Japan, but I don't see how this would bring Canada into war with Japan.

The U.K. declared war on Japan the same day as the U.S. - on December 8, 1941.

Canada declared war on Japan before either the U.S. and the U.K. on December 7 - the day Pearl Harbor was attacked(!)

Seems like Prime Minister William Lyon King was quite the War Party war lover.

He beat U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill when it came to declaring war on Japan.

In December 7 1941, the Imperial Japanese military didn't have any Canadian blood on its hands to justify it either.

Thread drift: unless someone wants to make a specific case for Canada's attacks on Libya as a "just war", their are other threads for general discussions of the idea.

Meanwhile, the phony excuse of NATO/Canada/NDP about "protecting civilians" is revealed as total indifference when it involves our Death-from-the-skies campaign:

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/08/10/amnesty-urges-nato-to-investigate-civ...

I disagree as well.  Non-intervention should be viewed as a good general principle between neighbours and usually intelligent political policy.  It shouldn't be viewed as an absolute.   For the left to use the UN mandate as the only tangeable standard on which to base this is even more problematic. 

All three parties are imperialist. I have heard Do-War (thx knownothing) mouth propaganda like the "viagra" story.  He is now calling on the government to get tough with Syria.  In foreign policy the NDP has abandoned most of its long held convictions and now sound remarkably like the other parties. DO-War is either not up on his file since he mouths NATO rhetoric or he actually believes that bombing other people cities and civilians is the way to peace.  Either way it is sad to listen to him speak.  He sounds like a UK Labour party spokesperson.

My mention of Liberals is no non-sequiter Contrariana, since you have a history here of attacking the NDP from both left and right, while going easy on or ignoring the Liberal Party of Canada, which OC deserves the lions share of blame for the present sorry state of Canada's centre-left.   I also find your predictable attacks on the NDP less than convincing from a progressive standpoint.   Are you offended now?

I am no longer a partisan of any official party FYI, hence my ignoing this thread up till now, but I still have somewhat more hope for the party of Douglas, Lewis and Barrett.  If that is their leftwing can be re-mobilized effectively, always an open question. 

..........

Yes, it is clear that Canada and the U.S. should have stayed totally out of the war between empires(in such a war, it doesn't matter who wins because all empires are the same)in 1914, especially if the workers of Europe had done what they were supposed to do and put class before flag. And North American involvement in World War One led to purely right-wing results.  Nothing progressive or positive occurred as a consequence of that war's having happened.

If there'd been no World War I(and that war largely happened because the imperialists on both sides wanted their working-class populations to slaughter each other)nothing like Naziism would have come to power in Germany and thus, there would have BEEN no "German Polish situaion in 1939".

Having said that, a person doesn't have to have supported involvement in World War One to defend involvement in World War Two on antifascist grounds. 

Care to apologize for making an absurd analogy about two totally uncomparable international situations?

There is no overreation in my statements.

Calling me a Liberal is a lie, Erik, and by definition that makes you a liar.

You have shifted this discusion to a squabble of personalites but I suppose that was your intent.

The only party I have ever been a member of, and  worked for, was the NDP. Admittedly, that was some years ago and Provincially.

I have always voted NDP Provincially, and likely will continue doing so.

I have voted NDP federally in all but the last 2 elections when I voted for the candidates most likely to beat the Con Gary Lunn.

E.May did in fact beat Lunn, and though her motives may be suspect, at least she voted against the Libyian bombing.

I am on record of supporting the positive noises the NDP has made in the past regarding foreign policy and I am on record attcking the Liberals

Big deal.

None of this personal crap should matter to subject at hand.

No it shouldn't, on that we could agree.  But if you've ever made a positive noise about the NDP or shown much interest in the actions of those who actually govern most of this country I've never seen it.  My calling your motives in question therefore does not make me a liar.     I'm acting in this way because I've seen how extreme partisanship (we all act in that manner at times, except the woefully detached) has damaged this site and more important how it's damaged this country's discourse.  One thing I liked about Canada of old was our ability to disagree without being disagreeable.  At least at times.  But maybe we're past that point too.  I now feel like we're living in a reenactment of the Weimer Republic, with all the radicals, socialists, social democrats and centrists too caught up in old battles and old formulas to see the very real threat growing all around.  But OC we still have to compete in our FPTP system and struggle to get our own ideas right.  But then Pro Rep didn't save the old Republic either from the depression and old attitudes.  Whatever.  If I'm wrong abut you, well, you can always just prove me wrong sometime.

ETA:  I came from that riding, and probably would have voted for eMay last time too.  But I remain unconvinced her own small victory or small gesture will mean much beyond reinforcing the artificial divides on the centre-left.  Her beloved Liberals should just admit theyre to the right of the old PCs now and go for it, but OC theyre still more interested in blocking the left than the right.

If you are referring to me, then you are mistaken.

I was comparing Korea, Iraq War 1 and Kosovo 1999 with WW1 and 2. That is to say, I consider them all equally wrong.

I am universally opposed to states, militaries and state actors militarily waging Wars of Aggression on other countries.

If people feel strongly enough about a war or conflict when their own country has not been invaded, then they should do what like concerned people of the (Western) democracies did in the Spanish Civil War: They are entirely in their right to go there and participate as individuals and not to represent their country or anyone else but themselves.

Korea, Iraq War 1, Afghanistan, Iraq War 2 and Libya were approved or acquiesced to by the U.N. Security Council: Some members were either absent, abstained or were bribed (one way or another) by the U.S. to not vote "No" by abstaining.

In the case of Korea, the U.S.S.R. was absent when the UNSC voted on war because it had pulled its delegates in protest over the Berlin Airlift. The People's Republic of China was not a member, instead "Nationalist" China or the Republic of Taiwan represented "China" on the security council. The People's Republic of China did not become a Permanent Security Council Member until 1971.

Had this not been the case, the U.S. would never have commanded a "U.N." multinational military force in Korea.

Kosovo 1999 was not a U.N. "war," it was a U.S./NATO/CIA/MI-5/Albania/KLA War of Aggression.

The Iraq Wars, Afghanistan and Libya (which I'll talk about later) were also cases where Russia and China were bribed to acquiesce or accept what the U.S. wanted.

In the case of Libya, not only were Russia and China bribed and convinced to abstain from voting but like Afghanistan and Iraq War 2, the U.S. and the E.U. countries violated the respective U.N. Resolution - UNSCR 1973, thus being guilty of committing war crimes/crimes against humanity.

The view that I have of the U.N. is that its declared purpose is that war is a crime. To that end, the U.N. (ideally) endeavors to end war and achieve world peace by assisting those who ask to negotiate peaceful settlements to war and conflict. Not as I said above to end war and violence through (more) war and violence as NATO does. Do not confuse the two.

Some examples of this would be Cyprus, and currently in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Sudan where a small contingent of the U.N. is working with a much larger contingent of A.U. (African Union) peacekeepers. Now I know nothing is perfect, and in these cases there have been mass murders of unarmed civilians, sometimes right under the nose of the U.N. peacekeepers. These problems are often caused by a lack of staff (because of a current lack of interest in peacekeeping and a new interest in war and warmaking) and human failings.

For a better understanding of the true purpose of the U.N., read its Charter. The U.N. Charter was written to be compatible with the Nuremberg Principles and the Geneva Conventions.

It is a legal and moral contradiction for the U.N. to be involved in or supportive of a War of Aggression and/or other war crimes/crimes against humanity.

Since powerful countries in the Security Council like France, the U.K. and the U.S. wrested through a UNSCR that allows a U.S./NATO military presence over Libya and then clearly and unashamedly violated it, the U.N. General Assembly (i.e., the rest of the U.N.) can't very well use force against these aggressors and criminal actors.

So what power does the U.N. have to stop the U.S. and NATO countries from committing crimes in Libya?

The U.N. could shame the worst perpetrators by publicly naming them and putting them on a list of war criminals. The U.N. could put out warrants for their arrest and encourage people to attempt to arrest them with the intent of them being brought before an international court to be tried as war criminals and for crimes against humanity.

Those at the top of the list should be U.S. President Barack Obama, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay and Canadian General Charles "the Butcher" Bouchard - NATO commander of the Libyan War.

Great posts Frmrsldr

When the people lead the 'leaders' will follow...

Sure, the people.  But who is claiming to speak for them?  And do 'the people' themselves have one voice or one view point?  That's the problem with somewhat democratic societies where the middleclass are the majority and the majority is so easily distracted.

And whose boot will replace it.  So far there appears to be no democratic movement opposing him.  I pity the poor people of Libya a choice between a home grown tyrant and a western backed tyranny.  No choice at all only tyranny in sight. 

cheers to the rebels... they seem to believe in their cause and think it's worth fighting for, even if keyboard generals 10,000 miles away don't

yes, it's chaotic:

a 40-year dictatorship is falling (which followed a monarchy and foreign occupation), with no civil society and no organized opposition ready and waiting ... so a  bunch of guys grab weapons and the revolt is on

if you want ideological consistency,  stand by Khadaffi as a proven quantity; but there is no 3rd way in these conditions

and: let the rebels hang in the square of Benghazi! not our war!

thanks for the solidarity ... Babble, always ready to back rebels as long as they are not too much of  a bother

Ever since the uprising, Gadhafi has been in control of Tripoli and there have been no public hangings of rebels in the square.

No, the Libyan civil war is not our war.

We have no right to wage a War of Aggression on Libya, intervene in Libya or commit war crimes/crimes against humanity by maiming and murdering innocent civilians through bombing their cities.

What are you, a Libyan rebel?

Because the West's Libyan campaign has gone so very south and because it increasingly looks as if what was originally contemplated as 'easy pickings' by the Western warmongers, is going to be massively resisted by Libyans who understand, far better than most Canuckleheads, what is at stake for them if the empire's greasy savagery was to succeed, I think it entirely possible that we'll see the NDP exploit the opportunity to actually oppose any extension. If they do it will demonstrate that there is no longer elite consensus on going forward either - and not that the no difference party has any principles left to follow or a constituency that will in any way hold them to their word.

'a plague on all their houses'

War is not moral. To support or oppose war is to make a moral statement.

If you have the time, look up

the 1919-21 efforts by Herbert Hoover, Jane Addams and the American Friends Service Committee and their program of food relief for Germany.

The 1921 U.S. - German Peace Treaty.

The Dawes Plan.

The Young Plan.

The Lausanne Treaty.

Which countries continued the blockade of Germany, Austria and Hungary after the Armistice that ended WW1?

Which countries "squeezed the German lemon until the pips squeek"?

Who made that quote?

When you look at the "game of chicken" Roosevelt played with the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine and the nazi German Kriegsmarine and the Japanese Imperial Navy starting in early 1940, it is clear he was counting on the fact that it wouldn't be a question of if but of when, where and committed by whom, when it came to a major incident where American sailors would be killed and injured and American public opinion would be swayed in favor of war. Roosevelt knew what he was doing and was fully aware that the result of his actions would result in bringing America into the war.

In April 1940 Roosevelt transfered the Pacific Fleet from the safety of San Francisco to the dangerously exposed base of Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt's thinking was twofold: If Japan was planning to attack the Philippines, the Pacific Fleet would been seen as a threat by Japan that would need to be neutralized or eliminated. This was Roosevelt's upping the stakes in his 'game of chicken' or dodge/'murder' ball with the U.S. Navy (Pacific Fleet) and the Japanese Imperial Navy. Roosevelt was dangling the plum of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in front of Japan; just daring Japan to strike in an attempt to destroy the fleet.

I guess the fact that all U.S. aircraft carriers were out to sea on maneuvers that weekend was also just a coincidence.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentag...

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/McCollum/index.html

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

For the record: I don't agree with the argument that Roosevelt was a "communist lover."

No.

I'm saying by September 1, 1939 Germany invades Poland. Britain and France used the excuse of the Polish invasion to join in the War of Aggression party.

If you are going to wage a War of Aggression for the noble, generous, humanitarian, moral reason of defending Poland, then be honest about it and have the courage of your convictions. Given the fact that France shares a border with Germany and the British Expeditionary Force were in France, the easiest and most effective way to "defend" Poland was to wage a War of Aggression against Germany on German soil rather than on Polish soil.

Reread your quote:

Look at the neutral language you used: Stalin "moved" as opposed to invaded Poland. Stalin "moved" into Poland to what, create a defensive buffer between nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and then signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact to guarantee peace between nazi Germany and the Soviet Union?

Your chronology and analysis is wrong. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed before the Nazi-Soviet War of Aggression on Poland. Stalin agreed to the Pact because he was promised eastern Poland by Germany if he participated in Germany's War of Aggression on Poland.

The meme here is that

War is not noble, generous, honorable, humanitarian, moral and just.

Wars are not fought for noble, generous, honorable, humanitarian, moral and just reasons.

Wars are not launched (i.e., initiated) in defense.

World War 2 as the "Good War" or the "Just War" is a myth.

None of the major participants in WW2 (Germany, France, the U.K., Italy, Japan, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. [1939-40]) entered this War of Aggression for noble, generous, honorable, humanitarian, moral and just reasons. All these countries committed war crimes/crimes against humanity in WW2.

Wrong.

As I said, neither the British nor French governments had any formal agreements with the governments of Norway and Belgium to deploy their troops there.

War is not launched for defense. War is not fought for generous reasons: France and Britain invaded Norway and Belgium and turned these countries into battlefields for selfish reasons:

France was invaded and turned into a battlefield in WW1 and did not want this to happen again.

Britain was not invaded and turned into a battlefield in WW1 and did not want this to happen in WW2.

By invading Norway and Belgium to wage a War of Aggression against German forces and thus turn these countries into battlefields, Britain and France acted exactly like Germany: They acted as if the Norwegian and Belgian governments didn't exist or didn't matter. Norway and Belgium were used as means to the future security, prosperity and well-being of France, Britain and Germany.

And would you PLEASE cut down on the number of interchanges in every reply?   It gets rather confusing for me where to quote and un/ and very probably harder for anyone to read.  Good rule of thumb is the one youre replying to, full text if necessary, or maybe one further back to see what its regarding, if necessary.  Anything else just gets too much. 

FRmslr wants to make an isue about still, in a highhanded way, I'm just replying and trying to explain MY alternate position.  BUt then youre not exactl opposed to thread drift are you?

Let me explain my point of disagreement one more time for clarity.  As a rule of thumb foreign interventions aren't wise nor are they moral -rarely to never being without ulterior motives.  HOWEVER.  Somethimes they maybe jutified anyway if the OTHER guy acts in a prticularly sociopathic and lethal manner -as does happen.  (ie: mass genocide)  Ad sometimes the RESULTS can ultimately prove better for those we are supposed to be most concerned about.  Being a national government does not give anyone the right to murder their own people or their national minorities or their neighbours, and the world doesn't just have to sit back and watch he horrors occur.  Even the original UN mandate allows for that.     

Sorry if that means each case has to be rethought and refought rather than just treated as part of a simple formuli to be repeated ad nauseum -uually without effect.  Or discarded when it doesn't support your own prefered form of government.  

One of the reasons the new right kicks the old left's butt, aside from the obvious advantages, is that they can adjust their dialectic to the situation or even offer two slightly varying lines which help create an illusion of debate and consideration.  Furthering allowing admission of 'error' (and hierarchy of blame) afterwords if it all gets royally messed up.  They can mislead more effectively as a result. And sometime change tactics or sides.

 I figured out a long time ago they were shifing to the right.  Mostly I'm concerned whether they'll now renounce their support for this particular mission.  One I don't support. 

Yes. It was British Prime Minister David Lloyd George who made that quote in 1918 after the war.

It was indicative of Britain's and France's desire to utterly financially destroy Germany. That coupled with the Versailles Treaty were the first two (the other was the blockade) of a steady stream actions of commission or omission from November 12, 1918 to September 1, 1939 that enabled Hitler and the nazis to come into power and to do what they did.

Obviously you haven't looked up:

The 1919-21 efforts by Herbert Hoover, Jane Addams and the American Friends Service Committee and their program of food relief for Germany.

The Dawes Plan

The Young Plan

The Lausanne Treaty.

These were all efforts by the U.S.A. to ease Germany's suffering by attempting to provide food to malnourished and starving people (Britain and France still enforced the blockade until the end of 1919) and to reduce and eventually forgive (Lausanne Treaty) the debt imposed upon Germany by the Versailles Treaty.

Looks convincing to me. Did you read entirely the links I provided?

Wrong.

I write that:

War is not noble, generous, humanitarian, good or just.

War is never launched (i.e., initiated) for defense.

War is never fought for noble, generous, humanitarian or just reasons.

Where do I solely blame the U.S.A. for WW2?

Nowhere.

I said ALL the major powers (Germany, the U.S.S.R. (1939-40), the U.K., France, Italy, Japan and the U.S.A) were guilty for waging Wars of Aggression during WW2.

Starting with the 1919-21 efforts by Herbert Hoover, Jane Addams and the American Friends Service Committee and their food relief program, the 1921 U.S. - German Peace Treaty, The Washington Naval Conference, Washington Naval Treaties and the Neutrality Act, The U.S.A. has a proud tradition of valiant efforts to establish and maintain international peace.

I do feel a little let down that by 1940, Roosevelt had come to the conclusion that his acts, agencies and programs (called the "ABC" Acts) had failed to bring the U.S. out of the Depression, that he had come to the conclusion that the best (possibly only) way out was war. To this end, he tried every questionable means he could think of to bring the U.S. into the war yet make America look like the innocent "wronged" party.

I wasn't expressing my values in that quote.

I was expressing Britain and France's values.

It's not my inconsistency;

It's theirs and their lack of guts for not having the courage of their own convictions (i.e., for "not putting their money where their mouths were.") when it was quite possible that they could have lived up to their pledge to Poland which you claim they were unable.

You don't even seem to understand what you write.

What you are asking me now has nothing to do with the 'honey deal' Stalin got with the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact and the U.S.S.R.'s War of Aggression on Poland.

"Should we or should we have not fought the Nazi Germans, regardless of what may or may not have led to it?"

Depends.

If nazi Germany attacked or invaded Canada or the U.S.A. (which it did not), then the answer is "Yes."

As events turned out, Canada entered the war against Germany and Japan (in the case of Japan, Canada declared war on December 7 1941, before the U.S. and the U.K. who declared war on December 8!), without (before) being attacked or invaded by (either) Germany (or Japan.)

In the case of the U.S., Roosevelt was using the U.S. Atlantic fleet, the U.S. Coast Guard and Merchant Marine as bait for the German Kriegsmarine, but Hitler didn't bite. Roosevelt then tried Japan. He wasn't interested in war with Japan. He wanted war with Germany. If he succeeded in luring the Imperial Japanese Navy into attacking the U.S. Navy Pacific fleet, the attack would have to look like a resounding success. Hitler would not risk a two front war by going to war against the U.S. unless Japan struck (what appeared to be) a crippling blow against the U.S. Pacific fleet.

Roosevelt made it look like Japan had struck a devastating blow against the U.S. by placing garbage battleships, cruisers and other ships that dated back to WW1 and the 1920s. That is why the aircraft carriers and other fast and modern ships were out to sea that weekend. It was no accident. Hitler fell for the ruse. Roosevelt got what he wanted: war with Germany, the American public rallied behind him for war and the U.S. looked like a completely "innocent victim."

So, as events historically turned out, the answer is "No."

Even though Hitler declared war on the U.S.A., the U.S.A. was under no necessity to declare war on Germany.

Keep in mind that nazi Germany couldn't even pull off an amphibious and air invasion of the U.K. just across the English Channel.

How do you suppose they would pull one off when it came to invading the U.S.A.?

"You want to invade us? Go ahead and try. We'll show you what we're made of. Meanwhile why don't you see if you can sucessfully defeat the U.K. and the U.S.S.R. first?"

Obviously you haven't asked any Norwegians, therefore you can't assume what they'd say.

I'll tell you this though, not only did the British and French land troops (invade) without the knowledge or permission of the Norwegian government and wage a War of Aggression on Norwegian soil like Germany, they didn't even communicate or coordinate their troop movements with Norwegian forces thus offering them no effective help in the defense of their country.

In the case of Belgium, British and French troops again invaded without the formal agreement of the Belgian government. Like Norway, British forces did not communicate or coordinate their movements with Belgian troops. There were instances where local British military intelligence knew of German advances. They did not pass this information on to the Belgians who were unaware of the German advances. British troops withdrew to stronger defensive positions. This harmed the Belgian force's tactics and weakened their defenses. Many Belgian lives and battles were needlessly lost.

The French treated the Belgians better. French forces at least communicated and coordinated their actions and movements with Belgian forces. This had the effect of mutually strengthening their defenses and efforts. Then again Belgium is bilingual. French was used by the government, civil service, diplomatic service and in professional society. Because of this France had an affinity with Belgium. Unlike Britain, Belgium also shares a border with France and France knew that if Belgium fell, France would be next - so again, France was motivated by self-vested interests.

War is not fought for generous or humanitarian reasons.

Yes,

But is it good?

Did it get you to think?

Did you learn anything?

The myth that WW2 was "The Good/Just War" is what has informed our attitude and actions toward war.

That is why we are waging a War of Aggression on Libya.

That is why the NDP is more 'new right' than 'old left' on this issue.

If you want to change peoples' behavior toward war, you have change their attitude toward it.

It starts with you and me and all our babble friends.

 so much for the NDP's credibility on military issues ... honestly, modern social democrats cannot afford this kind of amateurism on security issues

You're just repeating yourself.  So I will too, one last time.   I never said war was ever 'noble, etc'.  I told you that already.   I did say they are somtimes necessary.  Even foreign interventions, at times.  So yes, WW2 for one was indeed necessary, once Hitler's and Tojo's legions started overruning others borders, indescriminately murdering civilians, treating other ethnicities as inferiors, slaves or worse.    WW2 does not however justify whatever has followed.  I again, distiniguish between the obvious propoganda, which tries to compare tinpots like Saddam Hussein with threats like Adolf Hitler, and the shifting realities of time and place and circumstances, and my own perceptions of it.    I think most other citizens can still do the same, if they care to. 

As for 'divisions' on the left, the left has never been unified -never.   And the far left is as rsponsible for this as the 'social democrats' and 'liberals'.  As well as the billions of others who also shape our collective realities and individual responses.   I owe noone my loyalty.  If someone wants my trust, ontop of my always conditional support, then they'll just have to win it and keep it.   Like everyone else but my mother.

WWII would not have been necessary had the west done several things to avert it. For one thing Keynes warned western governments not to extract so high a price for war reparations from the German people. European socialists at the time were calling for market mechanisms to prevent further warfiteering and specifically to raise taxes on those activities the people wanted less of - war. And they were ignored by governmental hirelings of the bankers, industrialists and arms makers for the second time in two decades.

The Bank for International Settlements was created specifically to arrange for Germany's payment of reparations in various currencies demanded by western governments and a financier oligarchy. The conditions lowered on Germans created a situation ripe for revolution and-or Germans reaching out to the first strongman to come along and lie his head off to them in squawking open air speeches while saying quite different things to German industrialists and bankers behind closed doors.

England and her western allies also knew full well years beforehand that Hitler was re-arming for war. Political opposition in England at the time knew that Nazi Germany was building battleships and armaments in direct violation of WW I treaties. They did nothing. 

And when the Oster conspirators tried to warn Downing Street early on that Hitler and the Nazis were threatening war in Europe, and that there was still time to assassinate him before Germany's military grew too strong, Neville Chamberlain turned his back on them and said they were approx quote-unquote, anti-Nazis and not to be trusted. 

Of course Nazi Germany's violations of post WW I Versaille Treaty obligations were proof that western corporations as well as those in Germany were helping Hitler to re-arm for war. And some members of the British Royal Family Inc. were ardently pro Nazi themselves as was George Bush's grandfather and William Lyon MacKenzie King and so on. Hitler and NSDAP didnt sidle-up close to power by wild chance or mistake before seizing it outright. Russia's war museums still refer to western countries in general as fascist nations. And I think we are still battling fascism today. Fascism moved from Europe to America after the war no question about it. And FDR did not defeat fascism at home - it only went dormant for a while in corporate America waiting for an opportune time for Wall Street and MIC to takeover US Government so utterly and thoroughly the way they have. 

Bottom line: war is far too profitable for a capitalist system to raise taxes on in order to discourage it from happening. Fascism was a problem then like it is today with the current situtation of highly profitable, unregulated warfiteering and banking industries so thoroughly and completely in control of so-called democratically elected governments doing nothing to avoid war or what popular opinion says they should not do. What they do is spend wildly on military and working with corporate war lobbysists in creating trumped-up pretenses for war. The army is not meant to protect us today so much as it is a tool for the neoliberal financial regime to enforce their illegitimate and highly oppressive monetary system on the developing world. Neoliberalism is highly undemocratic, and so goes the need for well equipped militaries to be used against whole nations of people when the IMF, WTO and World Bank's vicious neoliberal financial regime eventually destroys their economies creating civil war and chaos. 

I am with Former Soldier as usual on this one. War is just far too profitable - with profit margins far exceeding that of ordinary capitalist ventures - for corporate-owned and controlled governments not to be tempted in pursuing as a first order of business for their actual constituents, the rich and powerful war lobby and financial puppeteers. As long as fascists are in control, there will be more wars and false flags leading to highly lucrative, highly profitable and highly amoral war and warfiteering as the end result and hidden motive for going to war. War is why countries go into debt either by over-spending on war or picking up the pieces after they've been attacked militarily and economies and infrastructure destroyed by war.

I'm with Former Soldier - all war is bad. If there is a war that seems necessary and justified, then look closer at the whys and hows leading up to it happening. War is the height of insanity. War is organized murder, and war is the ultimate failure of governments to use diplomacy in averting war. And there is absolutely no excuse for unprovoked military attacks against sovereign countries today in direct violation of international law since Nuremberg. The Gladio Gang are committing crimes against peace and crimes against humanity as they have done regularly and merrily since WW II.

And the right seems to be growing stronger. What we now have in Canada is a unified political force of upper and lower classes against the middle. Rich and poor are united in solidarity against labour in Canada. First order of business for fascists is to attack unions and organized labour - this is historical fact. We must have a united front on the left before we can even things up numerically with modern democratic reforms. United we might stand a pretty good chance against this current phony majority dictatorship with 24% of registered voter support under them. And they had to have the largest war chest in order to run the campaign that they did. These corrupt stooges are very beatable but only by a united and democratic true majority on the left.

Yes we will send them RCMP officers to train them up on running torture prisons like they do in Afghanistan and Iraq.  And of course NATO military trainers to train an army of collaborators to protect  the new "no bid" contracts that our Canadian imperialist companies are counting on getting to rebuild the infrastructure that our planes destroyed.

And Paul Do-War will lead the singing for the NDP from the NATO briefing hymnal he loves so dearly.

..nato is a powerful tool used to transfer wealth to the wealthy and maintain or expand power. in canada it is paid for by people it is used against here in this country. if nothing else, by the direct support to the military industrial complex. nato is like a land mine. it cannot be reformed it needs to be dismantled.

..to use libya as a political issue which is what i believe the ndp did has an ugly result. these kind of things always do. you can't erase what's left after the dust settles. no matter how you spin it war is always wrong as is all military might.

..this issue will be dealt with internally or it will be dealt with elsewhere. no one can ignore the direct democracy movement that has come calling from egypt and europe. they have rejected political parties in europe. we are in deep crisis environmentally, economically and morally. we need a total change in direction. what the ndp did will not do.

Fact: Neither NDP nor Liberal Party support was necessary for the "Harper Government of Canada" to carry out the colonial-administrative task to bomb Libyan civilians and delegated to them by their bosses in Washington.

Let's not pretend that what we have is democracy in Ottawa.  It's not something that can be fixed overnight.  Our worst past the post system simply does not reward political integrity 100% of the time - there are other factors, like who are the Canadians voting in elections and parties being forced to appeal to a narrow electorate. Is that democratic? No, it never is, and we should know this by now. Parties taking 100% principled stands on every issue are all there on the sidelines looking in. The NDP used to be one of them as they say. The reality is that it's a dirty system promoting dirty politicking. FPTP is designed to prevent competitive elections. Do we play or not? 

Fidel is doubly wrong. He's wrong because it's the duty of the Opposition to provide an alternative to the regime in power. And in the case of a social democratic party (or such), this alternative shouldn't be simply cosmetic over such significant issues as war and peace and whether Canada goes to war.

Fidel is also wrong because Ms. May of the Green Party managed to demonstrate that one M.P. can make a difference on this issue. How much more of a difference can over 100 M.P.s make?

Why Elizabeth May refuses to be a rubber stamp in the Commons

P.S. If I didn't already mention it, welcome back Fidel ... and how's them apples? :)

..a vote is a political position. it is not meaningless. eta: i use certain issues as my guide to vote for. war is core with me. it's not balanced with a good policy on pensions.

..your spinning me fidel. your not debating me.

..more spin

..that's not the point.

The answer depends on when you were born, before 1991 or after, and whether or not you read and absorb a lot of lamestream newz media spin concerning a cold war era. Because they spun it often and hard against the CCF-NDP more times than not over the course of 50 years or so. 

Fact: The NDP's vote on Libya was not needed in order for the Harpers to toadie like they did. Why did the LPC vote for it as well? That's the real mystery.

You're still repeating yourself and, given the arguments you haven't addressed squarely, rather dogmatic IMV.  Some wars need to be fought, regardless of their evils.  Libya wasn't one of them.

Thats part of what I was arguing.   That part is pretty much text book history, but it doesn't change the fact that Hitler's increasing belligerance had to met head on eventually.  One of the weaknesses of the left is that we too often fail to consider changing cicumstnces or behaviour patterns, regardless of what led up to them. Who is ultimately to blame becomes almost academic after a certain point.    As frmer soldier wrote he could have been stopped earlier, but earlier than the Russ0-German agreement to divy up Poland.  He should have been stopped before there was a hige loss of life and firming up of nationalistic instincts.    But that too is hindsight.