New Democrats Call for End to Military Mission in Libya

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.