CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1453
PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:06 pm
 


The Winter Olympics are now part of the history books. However, while this celebration of global unity was happening, the gruesome civil war in Syria has continued unabated. The civil war in Libya prompted Western countries like Canada to provide military support to the rebels, but so far no Western country has done the same thing in Syria.

Past interventions by Western countries have been extremely controversial. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by an American-led coalition was widely condemned, while the lack of Western involvement in the Rwandan genocide was also condemned. In the first case, the West was criticized for intervening in Iraq, while in the second case it was criticized for not doing anything.

This raises the question of how and when countries like Canada should intervene, or participate in, foreign conflicts. Canada helped the Libyan rebels fighting against Moammar Gaddafi and joined in the mission in Afghanistan, while it stayed out of the 2003 Iraq war. In the meantime, other oppressive regimes, like the Communist dictatorship in North Korea, remained untouched by the West.

What is the difference between the conflict in a country like Syria, and a country like Libya? Why would, or should, the West intervene in one conflict, but not the other? In Libya, Canada participated in enforcing a no-fly zone to hamper Gaddafi as part of a mission endorsed by NATO and the United Nations. The mission was justified as part of a responsibility to protect the people of Libya, although one might ask why no such justification exists for the people of Syria.

Similarly, what is the difference between a dictatorship like Saddam Hussein’s former regime in Iraq, and the Kim dynasty in North Korea? One of the main reasons that the American coalition intervened in Iraq was to overthrow Hussein, but in that case, why has no action been taken against the dictators of countries like Iran, Zimbabwe or North Korea?

Some critics might say that intervention is done simply to benefit the West’s own interests. But if that’s the case, then how is it in anyone’s interest to have North Korea testing missiles? How did the West benefit by helping the rebels in Libya, or by not interfering in Rwanda?

Western nations like Canada only have so much money and resources that they can commit to such conflicts, particularly when the public is often less than keen to commit so many resources and lives to doing it. Not to mention that, in some cases, interference can just as easily make things worse, as many critics have claimed the intervention in Iraq has done. With all this in mind, it becomes particularly difficult for political leaders to decide how and when their countries should interfere.

There are no easy answers to these questions, particularly not when the reasons for interfering or not, and the potential consequences of the decision, can have such a huge impact. Nowhere is this more clear than in the Crimea, which is now preparing to hold a referendum on whether to leave the Ukraine and join Russia.

So how do we know when the West should intervene in a conflict, or stay out of it?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:23 pm
 


We don't yet have the means of intervening, so stay out until we can be successful. Don't ever take on a fight unless you are going to win it.

(So far, Canada's record on that point has been pretty good.)


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7684
PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:23 am
 


When it's too late to make a difference, obviously.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
Profile
Posts: 1046
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 2:49 pm
 


Know what the mission is.
What can be accomplished.
Know what & when the the exit mission is.

3 largest mistakes the US made were:
1 Staying in the Afghanistan after the Taliban were defeated and the NA took over.
2 Invading Iraq.
3 Staying after Hussein was done.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 3:04 pm
 


Sounds like the real question here is, "When should Canada intervene?"

The correct answer: Only if Russian troops cross into NATO territory and not before then.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23058
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 3:40 pm
 


There are lots of differences between the conflicts you've mentioned, but pretty much, the places we intervened (Libya, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan) did NOT have a major power backing them. However, places like Syria and North Korea do have a protector so to speak, and that limits our options, both militarily and politically.

Conversely, places like Rwanda had NO supporters at all, so even if we had wanted to go in, we couldn't have. Even today, supporting a similar mission so far away would be next to impossible without support from at least one other major power.

In short, every conflict is different and it's next to impossible to compare them equally - it's apples to oranges.

Having said that, if Russia does actually invade the Ukraine, I think we should go now, or risk facing even more problems further down the road. I don't like the idea of sending our troops there, but Russia needs to be nipped in the bud to prevent Putin from re-assembling the USSR.

There is of course an obvious caveat to that - Canada does not have the ability to go it alone if Russia does invade. We would need to go as part of a coalition/alliance if we were to go.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 3:48 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Sounds like the real question here is, "When should Canada intervene?"

The correct answer: Only if Russian troops cross into NATO territory and not before then.



That is our obligation.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
Profile
Posts: 1046
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 3:53 pm
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
There are lots of differences between the conflicts you've mentioned, but pretty much, the places we intervened (Libya, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan) did NOT have a major power backing them. However, places like Syria and North Korea do have a protector so to speak, and that limits our options, both militarily and politically.

Conversely, places like Rwanda had NO supporters at all, so even if we had wanted to go in, we couldn't have. Even today, supporting a similar mission so far away would be next to impossible without support from at least one other major power.

In short, every conflict is different and it's next to impossible to compare them equally - it's apples to oranges.

Having said that, if Russia does actually invade the Ukraine, I think we should go now, or risk facing even more problems further down the road. I don't like the idea of sending our troops there, but Russia needs to be nipped in the bud to prevent Putin from re-assembling the USSR.

There is of course an obvious caveat to that - Canada does not have the ability to go it alone if Russia does invade. We would need to go as part of a coalition/alliance if we were to go.


NATO will not intervene in the Ukraine. If Ukraine is invaded, the West will talk loudly, implement sanctions.
NATO made a critical error by not building forward bases in the new NATO countries, Poland, the Baltic's, Romania.

The long game is Russia will turn into an economic mess. The Russian economy is dependent upon NG-Oil exports.
Credit rating 1 level above junk bond status.

As the EU weans themselves away, most will have better options, problem is Russia buys billions from Germany.

Canada, as a small country must and can only survive, achieve policy goals within a coalition.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:06 pm
 


Goober911 Goober911:
NATO made a critical error by not building forward bases in the new NATO countries, Poland, the Baltic's, Romania.


None of the politicians had the stones to stand up to the Russian desire to be able to threaten these states.

Now that the cat is out of the bag it's time to fully implement missile defense in Europe and North America.

Let Putin sit and spin on that.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
Profile
Posts: 1046
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:20 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Goober911 Goober911:
NATO made a critical error by not building forward bases in the new NATO countries, Poland, the Baltic's, Romania.


None of the politicians had the stones to stand up to the Russian desire to be able to threaten these states.

Now that the cat is out of the bag it's time to fully implement missile defense in Europe and North America.

Let Putin sit and spin on that.

Now are you referring to the Missile Shield that was set aside or transferring the Patriots from Turkey to these areas.
The Missile Shield can and is still on the budget books, rushing it forwards means expenditure by the US in the midst of cuts.

It is also time for the EU to step up.

The other issue are the new so called short range missiles that Russia is playing games with. Where does it fall in the treaties signed with Russia on nuke missiles.

Russia's end game on that is they want China to sign.
Wonder why they are so nervous......


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vegas Golden Knights
Profile
Posts: 2577
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:41 pm
 


Russia's end game is to get NATO and the other Western nations to spend money.

That's it.

Pushing the current fiscal situation of NATO and the West will do the rest for him.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7684
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:46 pm
 


peck420 peck420:
Russia's end game is to get NATO and the other Western nations to spend money.

That's it.

Pushing the current fiscal situation of NATO and the West will do the rest for him.


Really? We played that game with them already.

They couldn't hack it and imploded.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vegas Golden Knights
Profile
Posts: 2577
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:55 pm
 


saturn_656 saturn_656:
Really? We played that game with them already.

They couldn't hack it and imploded.

I would hazard a guess that the fiscal situation, last time, was a little different then this time.

Same for the political situation.

Same for the resource situation.

Same for the societal situation.

Thinking we will have to do nothing more than flash some bills and gleefully watch them implode this time, is precisely the type of hubris that Putin is banking on.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7684
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 5:10 pm
 


Are the situations the same? No.

Is Russia at a fiscal disadvantage (again)? Yep. It's an economic lightweight compared to the NATO powers, with stalling economic growth and bonds trading just above junk grade.

They can't win a game of dollars and cents. What they can win is a contest of will.

They have it, we don't.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 5:13 pm
 


We could bring them to their knees economically far quicker than when they were commies. No shot needs to be fired. But as you say, Saturn, we don't have the stomach for it, especially Europe. So Putin will get what he wants. Maybe it will backfire on him in the long run.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.