[Scape]

[Zipperfish]

It's a good point. But only two people have a realistic chance of becoming Prime MInister in this election, and you couldn't fit a piece of paper between their positions on Libya. Or Afghanistan for that matter. Heck, even Jack Layton isn't that far of the Conservative/Liberal position on Libya. And really, who gives a rat's ass what Gilles Duceppe thinks?

You can't really debate something that everyone is more or less agreed upon.

[Mr_Canada]

Zipperfish wrote:

You can't really debate something that everyone is more or less agreed upon.

Oh it's such a hoot that anyone participates in the sham

People want peace, leaders want war!

[jeff744]

Mr_Canada wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

You can't really debate something that everyone is more or less agreed upon.

Oh it's such a hoot that anyone participates in the sham

People want peace, leaders want war!

Which people? I know a lot that support Libya quite a bit since the people actually want us there.

[Mr_Canada]

jeff744 wrote:

Mr_Canada wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

You can't really debate something that everyone is more or less agreed upon.

Oh it's such a hoot that anyone participates in the sham

People want peace, leaders want war!

Which people? I know a lot that support Libya quite a bit since the people actually want us there.

Oh this latest offensive is certainly popular so far. Wars are often popular in the beginning. And for obvious reasons.

Criticism of it is completely mute in the media and in any political discussion. It's not really hard to see that people think it's fine to participate in more wars, especially with the pretense and assumption that we're totally humanitarian and on the "good guy" side.

It's so hard consider an impartial viewpoint when the only one being peddled is 'Ready Aye Ready!'

Anyhow I'm here to say that there are people who don't subscribe to this nonsense. We're only in this war because of our leaders, not the other way around.

[jeff744]

Mr_Canada wrote:

Oh this latest offensive is certainly popular so far. Wars are often popular in the beginning. And for obvious reasons.

Criticism of it is completely mute in the media and in any political discussion. It's not really hard to see that people think it's fine to participate in more wars, especially with the pretense and assumption that we're totally humanitarian and on the "good guy" side.

It's so hard consider an impartial viewpoint when the only one being peddled is 'Ready Aye Ready!'

Anyhow I'm here to say that there are people who don't subscribe to this nonsense. We're only in this war because of our leaders, not the other way around.

I thought we joined this war because the people of Libta asked us to come so instead of take the route that would take 3 months to reply (letting everyone vote) we let our leaders decide.

[Mr_Canada]

jeff744 wrote:

Mr_Canada wrote:

Oh this latest offensive is certainly popular so far. Wars are often popular in the beginning. And for obvious reasons.

Criticism of it is completely mute in the media and in any political discussion. It's not really hard to see that people think it's fine to participate in more wars, especially with the pretense and assumption that we're totally humanitarian and on the "good guy" side.

It's so hard consider an impartial viewpoint when the only one being peddled is 'Ready Aye Ready!'

Anyhow I'm here to say that there are people who don't subscribe to this nonsense. We're only in this war because of our leaders, not the other way around.

I thought we joined this war because the people of Libta asked us to come so instead of take the route that would take 3 months to reply (letting everyone vote) we let our leaders decide.

Objectively, do you think our leaders should have the capabilities to declare war whenever a protestor on one side of a civil war says 'help'?

Because there's a lot of things going on in the world and if we're going to be declaring war on all these countries and picking sides in their armed internal conflicts we're going to have some problems.

[Scape]

Zipperfish wrote:

It's a good point. But only two people have a realistic chance of becoming Prime MInister in this election, and you couldn't fit a piece of paper between their positions on Libya. Or Afghanistan for that matter. Heck, even Jack Layton isn't that far of the Conservative/Liberal position on Libya. And really, who gives a rat's ass what Gilles Duceppe thinks?

You can't really debate something that everyone is more or less agreed upon.

I'm not sold on that. There is so much not talked about that we need to address directly to the parties. For eaxample: The issue of the US and UK giving arms to the rebels. We are quite possible creating yet another Usama by doing this. I am certican there is far more then a piece of paper between their positions on that little nugget. It's not that we have gone to war but the repurcussion of those wars that needs serious review. If none of the parties care to bring it up in the debates then the issue need to be forced upon them by the public before we end up with bombs in our cities.

[jeff744]

Mr_Canada wrote:

jeff744 wrote:

Mr_Canada wrote:

Oh this latest offensive is certainly popular so far. Wars are often popular in the beginning. And for obvious reasons.

Criticism of it is completely mute in the media and in any political discussion. It's not really hard to see that people think it's fine to participate in more wars, especially with the pretense and assumption that we're totally humanitarian and on the "good guy" side.

It's so hard consider an impartial viewpoint when the only one being peddled is 'Ready Aye Ready!'

Anyhow I'm here to say that there are people who don't subscribe to this nonsense. We're only in this war because of our leaders, not the other way around.

I thought we joined this war because the people of Libta asked us to come so instead of take the route that would take 3 months to reply (letting everyone vote) we let our leaders decide.

Objectively, do you think our leaders should have the capabilities to declare war whenever a protestor on one side of a civil war says 'help'?

Because there's a lot of things going on in the world and if we're going to be declaring war on all these countries and picking sides in their armed internal conflicts we're going to have some problems.

Would you rather the country talk it over for a few months, likely deciding to enter weeks after the war has already ended possibly resulting in a military regime taking control and killing mass number of innocents? Actually, I like the sound of that option, if we're lucky maybe Libya would hate us for ignoring their calls for help.

[Thanos]

Which is why the US and most of NATO are foot-dragging on any assistance to the Libyan rebels that goes beyond air strikes. It's the British and French, presumably because the want the situation stabilized so the oil can start flowing to EUrope and Britain again, who are the ones pushing for more aggressive action.

The course the Obama Administration is following is the correct one. Blast the living hell out of Ghadaffi's forces to keep them from slaughtering civilians and to keep them from regaining the battlefield advantage, but do not do much more beyond that. High gasoline prices in Europe and Britain are not sufficient justification for creating another Afghanistan in Libya for another Al Qaeda/Taliban to thrive in. If a long-term stalemate is the result then so be it, and I certainly don't believe that Obama is the sort of administrator to be pushed into a foolish decision in the same way Bush was so easily led into Iraq. And considering that the Europeans are always bitching about the evils of fossil fuels (well, bitching all the time about the Canadian ones anyway, because they seemed to turn a blind eye to the moral costs of becoming dependent on the Libyan variety), maybe a period of high fuel costs will be the impetus for them to kick into another one of their trademark modes of overwhelming environmental self-righteousness and make them get off of oil altogether that much quicker.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos wrote:

Which is why the US and most of NATO are foot-dragging on any assistance to the Libyan rebels that goes beyond air strikes. It's the British and French, presumably because the want the situation stabilized so the oil can start flowing to EUrope and Britain again, who are the ones pushing for more aggressive action.

The course the Obama Administration is following is the correct one. Blast the living hell out of Ghadaffi's forces to keep them from slaughtering civilians and to keep them from regaining the battlefield advantage, but do not do much more beyond that. High gasoline prices in Europe and Britain are not sufficient justification for creating another Afghanistan in Libya for another Al Qaeda/Taliban to thrive in. If a long-term stalemate is the result then so be it, and I certainly don't believe that Obama is the sort of administrator to be pushed into a foolish decision in the same way Bush was so easily led into Iraq. And considering that the Europeans are always bitching about the evils of fossil fuels (well, bitching all the time about the Canadian ones anyway, because they seemed to turn a blind eye to the moral costs of becoming dependent on the Libyan variety), maybe a period of high fuel costs will be the impetus for them to kick into another one of their trademark modes of overwhelming environmental self-righteousness and make them get off of oil altogether that much quicker.

I sympathize with the politicians on this one. If I were in cahrge and had a semi-legitimate excuse to lay waste to Ghadaffi's forces, I would be sorely tempted, despite my isolationist tendencies. And really, who wants to stand around and watch him slaughter a good chunk of his population?

But there's not much of an angle in it for Canada. It's not like the rebels will thank us five years down the road. Like Thanos implies, we may just be paving the way for the next Taliban. Either that or this thing turns out into a long drawn out affair with escalating casualties and escalating NATO complicity in those casualties.

I gotta say, for me--tough call on this one.

[Canadian_Mind]

Mr_Canada wrote:

jeff744 wrote:

Mr_Canada wrote:

Oh this latest offensive is certainly popular so far. Wars are often popular in the beginning. And for obvious reasons.

Criticism of it is completely mute in the media and in any political discussion. It's not really hard to see that people think it's fine to participate in more wars, especially with the pretense and assumption that we're totally humanitarian and on the "good guy" side.

It's so hard consider an impartial viewpoint when the only one being peddled is 'Ready Aye Ready!'

Anyhow I'm here to say that there are people who don't subscribe to this nonsense. We're only in this war because of our leaders, not the other way around.

I thought we joined this war because the people of Libta asked us to come so instead of take the route that would take 3 months to reply (letting everyone vote) we let our leaders decide.

Objectively, do you think our leaders should have the capabilities to declare war whenever a protestor on one side of a civil war says 'help'?

Because there's a lot of things going on in the world and if we're going to be declaring war on all these countries and picking sides in their armed internal conflicts we're going to have some problems.

That's their job dude...

[Tricks]

Largest conflict since Second World War? Did Korea not happen? Pretty sure we had 10X the troops there.

I agree with Zip, the leaders all agree, what is there to debate about?

[Thanos]

Rex is normally the sane one at CBC but on this issue he really dropped the ball, and made a mountain out of a molehill. Neither conflict, at the moment, is a huge make-or-break moment for any party involved in the current election.