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...