About Turn! Time to Revise Canada’s Foreign Policy
- Thread starter ruxted
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,341
- Points
- 1,160
sgf said:
9/11 is a sui generis event.
It is highly likely that had 9/11 been aborted, for some reason or another, al Qaeda would have planned and eventually succeeded in attacking America at home in some spectacular action.
Absent 9/11 it is unlikely that the US would be involved in Iraq.
It is likely that NATO would have reacted in the same manner, invoking Article V, given the global situation being rather like the status quo ante - no Iraq mess.
It is equally likely that al Qaeda would still be using a Taliban ruled Afghanistan as a base.
So: Yes, NATO would be in Afghanistan IF, but only if Afghanistan was, eventually, used to mount a horrific attack (worse than the attack on the USMC barracks in Beirut) on
Edit: I amended my last pargraph. It isn't just US civilian casualties that might/would have provoked NATO. NATO would, quite likely, have reacted in the same way had al Qaeda crashed its aircraft into a couple of Bay Street bank towers in downtown Toronto or into the centre of Paris or Rome.
I think the real question is whether we would be in Afghanistan if there had not be a horrific terrorist attack on the West mounted by a movement based in that country. Leaving aside the delusional theories of the pipeline brigade, I suggest that the West would not have embarked on an Imperial adventure beyond the Khyber or anywhere else for that matter without provocation. Provocation is a vague word, but we should note that international law provides that a state(s) may act in self defence against a threat of attack.
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
sgf said:
Interesting point. I believe by now some incarnation of the Northern Alliance would have risen up, and the US would still have sent metric craploads of support in one or more forms. I think 9-11 was the catalyst for the rising, but it would have occured eventually, regardless, and no, I don't think we'd be there.
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
And I propose you led the negotiation team. Just how do you expect to negotiate with people(?) who abduct aid workers and behead them on global television?
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,370
- Points
- 1,160
You live in a bubble of naivety (and possibly ignorance too). Negotiations occur where they can, but really who are you going to negotiate with? Should providing a safe haven for Al Qaida be a negotiating point? Maybe the option for the TB to participate in the democratic elective process ... no wait, they already have that option.sgf said:
Let's try the "more internationalist path" and just do what the United Nations has asked: Fight with ISAF.
- Reaction score
- 4,341
- Points
- 1,160
sgf said:
The Ruxted Group is not happy with the current foreign policy either.
Go read the 'root' article on page 1 and the sister article to see why Ruxted is unhappy and what "different avenues" it wants to explore.
- Reaction score
- 4,341
- Points
- 1,160
sgf said:
Negotiations, of some sort, with someone, will, no doubt, be part of the long, convoluted process by which the Afghans will find their own way to running their own country in their own way - subject only to not turning it, again, into a base from which international terrorists can launch sneak attacks on us and our friends and neighbours.
Ruxted has something to say on that, too at: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/58-Supporting-the-Afghan-governments-search-for-peace.html and http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/59-Negotiating-a-Peace-in-Afghanistan.html and http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/60-More-on-Negotiations.html
What do you have in mind, sgf?
- Reaction score
- 9,233
- Points
- 1,260
Kat Stevens said:
The Northern Alliance was toast on 9 September 2001 when Ahmed Shah Masood was blown up. The only thing that saved that organization (and eventually put it in charge of Afghanistan) was US involvement in the conflict a month later.
If 9/11 had not happened, we would be gearing up for ROTO 32 in Bosnia, and Afghanistan would be like a majority of the world's other shitholes - forgotten by the press and the public. Iraq is another case - the terrorism link was never prevelent in Iraq (despite the fact that it was pushed by the Bush Adminstration - whoops....) but 9/11 did provide the US with the public support and international backing (which was subsequently pissed away) to be proactive on the world stage. I understand that the real cause, petroleum security, was looming big behind the scenes prior to 9/11 and it would have been an interesting "what if" to see how things would have played out without Mid-East oil and a "global war on terror" being so inextricably linked as they are now.
Anyways, back to the topic at hand - I had the "pleasure" of listening to a Lloyd Axworthy diatribe when he was UBC a few years back. His message then is the same as it is now - he needs to take the hint and realize that his time as Foreign Affairs Minister was a flop and that his foreign policy ideas suck.
- Reaction score
- 7,406
- Points
- 1,160
Mr. Axworthy's interventions are always hard for me to grind through. It's visceral.
The first problem I have is trying to figure out if it was him or his mother that was abandoned by some itinerant yankee soldier. I can't think of much else that would explain his rabid antipathy towards all things American.
The next part is relatively easy.
Responsibility to Protect.
Responsibility is defined in the same terms as the Liberals define Personal Responsibility and Ministerial Responsibility: a fairly open, one might even say liberal, interpretation.
I just can't take him seriously, beyond reflecting on the fact that a good chunk of Canadian Society shares his views - and that is the most bothersome part - along with the other fact that he is influential with Lawrence Martin and the rest of the Trudeaunians.
The first problem I have is trying to figure out if it was him or his mother that was abandoned by some itinerant yankee soldier. I can't think of much else that would explain his rabid antipathy towards all things American.
The next part is relatively easy.
Responsibility to Protect.
Responsibility is defined in the same terms as the Liberals define Personal Responsibility and Ministerial Responsibility: a fairly open, one might even say liberal, interpretation.
I just can't take him seriously, beyond reflecting on the fact that a good chunk of Canadian Society shares his views - and that is the most bothersome part - along with the other fact that he is influential with Lawrence Martin and the rest of the Trudeaunians.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
sgf said:
And about that large number of dedicated, extremist Taliban living across the Afghan/Pakistani border in happy comfort ?
"In September, Pakistan's president Pervez Musharraf signed a controversial peace agreement with seven militant groups, who call themselves the "Pakistan Taliban." Pakistan's army has agreed to withdraw from the area and allow the Taliban to govern themselves, as long as they promise no incursions into Afghanistan or against Pakistani troops. Critics say the deal hands terrorists a secure base of operations; supporters counter that a military solution against the Taliban is futile and will only spawn more militants, contending that containment is the only practical policy."
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html
Perhaps secret negotiations have all ready startedMCG said:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IH21Df03.html
This is also part of the same article, a bit on pipelines
Peace talks may not be the sole answer, but its obvious that some leaders do want to give it a try and I see nothing wrong with this idea. It will take lots of experts and lots of time and money and compromises will have to be made.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21045198/
- Reaction score
- 7,406
- Points
- 1,160
sgf:
Negotiations have started. They are not secret. President Karzai has said repeatedly that he will deal with anyone who will deal with him fairly (what he considers fair may not be what I consider fair, but that is beside the point). Anybody that accepts his suzerainty and puts down their arms, or better yet employs those arms to support the government, is welcome.
This is not new.
The whole concept of warring and fighting is a negotiation. The negotiation with Saddam continued right up until the time that he was forcibly dragged from his hole, and beyond.
The negotiation with his followers continues today both violently (in the streets) and peaceably (in parliament).
Our own "negotiations" domestically occur generally peaceably (in parliament) but occasionally violently (WTO, Oka, Caledonia, Rock Machine......).
Karzai's negotiations are ongoing and will continue........."For Ever and Ever, Amen".
Negotiations have started. They are not secret. President Karzai has said repeatedly that he will deal with anyone who will deal with him fairly (what he considers fair may not be what I consider fair, but that is beside the point). Anybody that accepts his suzerainty and puts down their arms, or better yet employs those arms to support the government, is welcome.
This is not new.
The whole concept of warring and fighting is a negotiation. The negotiation with Saddam continued right up until the time that he was forcibly dragged from his hole, and beyond.
The negotiation with his followers continues today both violently (in the streets) and peaceably (in parliament).
Our own "negotiations" domestically occur generally peaceably (in parliament) but occasionally violently (WTO, Oka, Caledonia, Rock Machine......).
Karzai's negotiations are ongoing and will continue........."For Ever and Ever, Amen".
FSTO
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,764
- Points
- 1,210
sgf said:
Obviously the reason why some Taliban are engaging in peace talks are a direct result of them getting their butts handed to them after several engagements with allied. If we let up the pressure on them then they have no reason to negotiate.
sgf said:
- We do. Canadians negotiate with villagers during the day. The next day, some of them fight us and some of them die. Now and then, some of us die, too. The day after, they talk to us again. What is your point? What would you say to them that is not being said now, other than "We surrender"?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Most excellent. 72% of Canadians want Canada to work within an international framework. so that would inmvolve countries like France, Germany, Australia, the UK, The USA, Sweeden, Spain, Turkey...
Hey Look! Internationalists!
Dear god sometimes people can be so stupid.
Similar threads
