Have you heard of NATO? Do you understand what mutual defense treaties are all about? The purpose of them is to get every country to agree to provide for each other’s defense, because each country sees that it is in its own best interest to belong to such an organization.
Any country signing that treaty knows that they may have to commit troops to a battle that has nothing to do with that country’s safety or sovereignity. That’s WHY you sign a treaty. If every country in NATO only fought when their personal interests were at stake, the organization would be useless.
If one of the smaller NATO countries were attacked by a neighbor, you can bet your ass that the U.S. and Canada would be there in a second, because we understand that keeping your word is important. Unfortunately, some countries (and some people on the SDMB, apparently) seem to think that these treaties are only important when their own safety is at stake, and then bail out when the going gets tough for someone else. That’s a despicable, cowardly attitude.
Shame on any NATO country that is backing away from helping the U.S. now.
I maintain that terrorists represent no nation of people, and that their actions cannot be accurately construed as an act of war by a nation/state. I find it frightening that NATO is gearing up fire-power associated with warfare. I don’t believe it is practical or ethical to respond to this crime against humanity by unleashing an arsenal of weapons on a soverign nation. It is fair and appropriate to implement measures, such as economic sanctions, against countries that serve as bases for terrorist groups, but I believe that attacking such countries is in conflict with international law. Unless a direct link can be established between a government and the terrorist act, I don’t believe that the act is an act of warfare.
Re: Why would terrorist attack Toronto? Because it would create terror. That’s what terrorists do, after all. If it is convienient to their purposes, they will attack Toronto or Ottawa or Montreal. They will do it on their timetable, and their terms. They won’t stop to consult with Jean Chretien. They won’t carefully check whether their victims are wearing maple leaf badges. They are perfectly happy to attack non-US targets–witness the thwarted plans to attack EU headquarters and the Eiffel tower. They are even perfectly happy to kill innocent Muslims, as the attacks in Africa and the Middle East show. The idea that Canada is can somehow distance itself from terrorism by distancing itself miltarily from the US is wishful thinking.
I have most certainly heard of NATO. It was once an organization that offered mutual protection for Western democracies against the Soviet Union.
Since the collapse of the Soviet bloc, however, it’s been an excuse for the Americans to drag its partners into ill-considered wars. The Americans have always had an imbalance of power within NATO – that’s why de Gaulle pulled out. Recently, though, American power within this organization has become a sore point for those of us who think that the US gets itself, and us, involved in things it shouldn’t be.
I’m coming to believe it’s time Canada pulled out. Our best defence has never been our or the American military, it has been, until very recently, that we are relatively peaceful country. No one cares, frankly, to attack us. I have no doubt it would abandon us if it felt it had no interest in protecting us.
While we struggle hard to meet our responsibilities on trade deals, for example, the United States is quite happy to ignore those same deals in the few instances (soft-wood lumber) where these pacts do not benefit it.
If they are unwilling to stick out their necks on as minor an issue as lumber, I hardly expect we can rely on America in a life-or-death situation. A continued presence in NATO, however, is likely to earn the wrath of America’s ever-growing list of enemies.
As for the immorality of going back on our word, it’s nothing compared to the immorality of the crime we are considering committing.
This “Eiffel Tower” plot (though I never heard anything about the tower being specifically targeted, only Paris) is no secret. The former French interior minister was talking about it on the TV two days ago. He seems he has been already informed about the ultimate goal of the terrorists while the hijacking was taking place. And that it would have been shot down if the hijackers didn’t have accepted to land on a runway in southern France (for a refuelling, IIRC), where it was stormed, since the passengers were already doomed, anyway.
I must strongly disagree with the notion that the U.S. would abandon any of its NATO allies “if it felt it had no interest in protecting us [Canada]”. The U.S. has many flaws, particularly in regard to foreign policy. The U.S. does, however, honor its alliances. Furthermore, I believe that the bulk of the citizens of the U.S. would very willingly support these alliances to the point of risking their lives.
Au Contraire. If you have been watching carefully, you notice that the EU nations that were backing down suddenly jumped back into line. Or were jerked back in.
London_Calling and I were just discussing this here.
Not really. What wars do you figure the U.S. dragged NATO into? Most recently, NATO dragged the U.S. into Kosovo (and there are still folks in the U.S. that are fuming over that). In fact the only war in which the U.S. might have dragged NATO, was the Iraq/Kuwait intervention. However, that was actually a U.N. operation (and no oil dependent Europeans objected very strongly to it).
de Gaulle pulled out of NATO because he wanted to assert French primacy in the world. He was also upset that the U.S. did not roll over when France tried to flex it imperial power in Egypt, Algeria, and South Vietnam. (The U.S. stupidly picked up the effort after France pulled out, but De Gaulle was mad that we did not send forces to help in 1953.) France continued to train with NATO, they just got to claim they were not in the U.S. hegemony (that no other nation acknowledged even existed). You will note that de Gaulle did that some 30 years prior to the collapse of the U.S.S.R., making your connecting logic a bit weak.
Is the U.S. the 800 lb. gorilla? Sure. And it has certainly made demands on other NATO members to keep up what the U.S. perceived as the required support. However, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the NATO members have pretty firmly rejected any attempt by the U.S. to continue its Cold War dominance. That is just the normal bickering among associates, not an attempt by the U.S. to create a proxy weapon of diplomacy and war.
:hijack:
Only someone living in BC could honestly think that the federal Liberal party was elected as the lesser of two evils.
:end hijack:
If you live in Esquimalt, why don’t you wander down to the base to see how the actual armed forces feel about the impending conflict?
As for Canada’s role in “Operation Infinite Justice”, I don’t think it be will heavy on the military end. Our armed forces are tiny compared to the US.
Where we should be asked to lend a hand is in intelligence. BC has the largest indian subcontinent population outside Asia-- i’m betting lots of them will end up in what spooks like to call HUMINT.
Actually, De Gaulle mainly wanted to assert France’s military (and political)independancy. Not sure what you mean by “primacy”.
Anyway, I wanted to point out that he didn’t exactly pull France out of NATO. France is still part in the NATO treaty, but not of the integrated command (though recently France became again “associated” with it, and its units in the [mainly Franco-German] Eurocorps are AFAIK part of the NATO forces)
Basically its independence from being seen as part of the group. De Gaulle wanted to be a world leader (not the world leader) and did not want to be perceived as following anyone else.
My cite for de Gaulle’s motivations on this is John Ralston Saul, who did his PhD in history on the de Gaulle’s political career.
The desire for independence (not primacy) and America’s bizarre policies regarding Vietnam certainly contributed, but America’s power within NATO was the real problem. De Gaulle said that no country could retain independence without nuclear weapons because it would be forced to rely on one that did. That’s why it developed its own arsenal. America held all the cards, and any country that wanted protection had better play by its rules.
I’d also cite Flexible Response in response to another reply that suggested that America does not abandon its allies in wartime. Europe certainly felt abandoned by that, especially Germany.
Heh. Actually I’m a card-carrying member of the NDP myself. But most of the people I know who voted liberal this time around told me they were doing it out of fear of Stockwell Day. Yet, in this an other matters, Chrétien his third successful election as, well, a carte blanche. A vote of confidence.
I don’t live anywhere near there now. I’m in Montreal. I hadn’t given too much thought to it. Any insights?
As far as I’m concerned even one token plane sent over there is capable of killing civillions, which I find inexcusable.
Huh? I don’t know that word.
That’s another reason to be worried, though. After that mosque was fire-bombed in Montreal, and that Sikh guy got killed in the States – I mean, BC has a long history of anti-Asian violence, against South Asian people. I can only imagine what things must be like for them now. I’m afraid people will associate them with the enemy simply because of where they’re from.
Having no interest in the debatable actions of dead French politicians, let us consider exactly what the US is preparing to embark upon.
This seems to me to go far beyond any skewed peceptions of “justice” (infinite or otherwise), and veer directly into a war on Afghanistan itself. Not only does the US demand unconditional political and governmental deference to its policy, it is quite prepared to categorize all other nations with nascent terror organizations as beligerents.
Is anyone else really terrified about this?
I asked before, what does the US legitimately hope to gain against “International Terrorism” beyond the deaths of millions of people, who previous to last Tuesday’s events were equally as unhappy with the Taliban or militant religious zealotry? These people are now - rightfully IMHO - prepared to defend their religious and sovereign interests in the face of a retaliatory attack the rationale for which had nothing to do with them in the first place.
Justice is not served by what the US demands of the Afghani people. Bush’s demands are patently designed to be outrageous and unacceptable in order to provide the US war machine with further justification for using all the military means at their disposal.
And for all it’s pledges of assistance and support, what sort of military aid does the US really need from NATO?
The only thing served by all of this is the lust for vengeance. And this will get much worse - for everyone - before it gets any better.
I don’t know that word.