The defence of democracy cannot be selective

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-defence-of-democracy-cannot-be-selective/article1201310/

Who believes that WE have to defend democracy for those damned 3rd world countries>
Who believes that what happens in Africa, Asia, The middle East, if it takes Canadian soldiers lives is of any concern to us?
Aid to disadvantaged countries, rife with crooked politicians scamming our federal aid?
Why not send it to our aboriginal brothers where aid will be scammed by crooked aboriginal band leaders?
At least it will stay in Canada!
Canada is 142 years old and the government hasn't yet figured out how to get things done efficiently!
Who has seen the results of aid not getting through?
Building homes on reserves , where the home is of such poor quality that the insulation isn't there?

Amen, brother Rosen!

Yes it is tiring to watch some third world country driving better tanks then we have .

It's tiring to see drug smugglers with better submarines than us...

Well you could probaly buy better at the local boat dealer as ours don,t work and, o won,t go there.

They sell drugs at the boat dealer now?

Gets left in some you know sold in a rush.

Ah, I got ya! Sort of like buying a car at a police auction and finding half a mil in the gas tank.

Yea sorta like that, wanta sell it

Airt Mattrèssor wrote:They sell drugs at the boat dealer now?

Get a new hobby! there are plenty to choose from on xkcd.com

Why don't you write about it in your blag?

RC's original post is worth some discussion. At what point does some of this sh1t become none of our business? Either alone or part of a coalition, can we actually expect to change things in countries on the other side of the world? Maybe we've been listening to too many Coca Cola commercials? Is it time to realize that we can't change the light bulb unless it wants to be changed?

I believe that, unless there is an extant mutual-defense agreement with another country (or countries), we shouldn't be meddling in others' affairs.

If the light bulb wants to be changed, it can do what Romania did.

The thing to understand is WHY things like the UN were even formed. Why the US feel obligated to "interfere" with other countries. Why Canada sends troops in to help countries.

It COULD be answered with just one name...Hitler...but it's actually much more than that.

Because of the non-interference and lack of monitoring of Germany...not once, but twice...they were able to accumulate enough of a military force...and joint determination to wipe out millions of people in an attempt to conquer Europe and Western Asia.

You could even date it back to the US Revolution...that had England maintained a stronghold in the Colonies...the colonials would never have had enough resources to stage the revolution to begin with.

Either way...this is what the UN was formed to help prevent. In general, most countries are left to their own. How many African & South American countries have had civil war and changes of power even over the past decade? Any interference there? (other than some missionaries and reporters poking their noses in)

But when these countries start threatening, or developing to a point where they COULD threaten outside their borders...THAT's when most action by the UN/US starts to take place.

Attack on Afghanistan - Osama bin Laden attacks the US (openly boasts about it)
Attack on Iraq (the first time) - Iraq invades Kuwait
Attack on Iraq (the second time) - whether you believe it or not...the "reason" was that Iraq was poised with WMDs to attack somewhere else again.
Mobilization on N. Korea - Nuclear weapons testing

And it's not just that they have the capabilities...it's that the perceived intent of use. Every industrialized country has nukes. US, Canada, England, Russia, China, Japan, Australia...they all have them (in some form or another)...but they also have check-systems in place...or enough reason to know they are useless for actual combat.

But the other countries are actually threatening to use them...and not just on other people...on their own people.

Basically...I'm trying to say...if you leave these smaller countries to their own devices...there's a reasonably good chance they will create something that could affect the whole world...and the more they try to deny/hide that fact...the more worried the rest of the world becomes.

AGEsAces wrote:How many African & South American countries have had civil war and changes of power even over the past decade? Any interference there? (other than some missionaries and reporters poking their noses in)

Apart from (allegations of) revolutionary groups (or in some instances the incumbent regimes) in some of these countries being funded/supported covertly by other governments or business interests?

Basically...I'm trying to say...if you leave these smaller countries to
their own devices...there's a reasonably good chance they will create
something that could affect the whole world...and the more they try to
deny/hide that fact...the more worried the rest of the world
becomes.

On this I agree, especially with "Dear Leader" is doing in North Korea, what with those test launches and all. However, if there is little to no chance of "spillover", I believe in letting internal matters remain internal.

Airt Mattrèssor wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:How many African & South American countries have had civil war and changes of power even over the past decade? Any interference there? (other than some missionaries and reporters poking their noses in)

Apart from (allegations of) revolutionary groups (or in some instances the incumbent regimes) in some of these countries being funded/supported covertly by other governments or business interests?

Perhaps...but all revolutions require a sponsor. Even the American revolution had the backing of the French & the Prussians. Today's governments are basically businesses...so funding from corporations seems reasonable. One reason the US is freezing assets of so many companies which seem to fund terrorist groups.

Airt Mattrèssor wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:Basically...I'm trying to say...if you leave these smaller countries to
their own devices...there's a reasonably good chance they will create
something that could affect the whole world...and the more they try to
deny/hide that fact...the more worried the rest of the world
becomes.

On this I agree, especially with "Dear Leader" is doing in North Korea, what with those test launches and all. However, if there is little to no chance of "spillover", I believe in letting internal matters remain internal.

And spillover is just a guesstimate...cause nobody KNOWS what these "leaders" will do...all they know is what they can perceive. That's probably why the US is currently only mobilizing troops...and haven't actually invaded N. Korea.

AGEsAces wrote:Perhaps...but all revolutions require a sponsor. Even the American revolution had the backing of the French & the Prussians.

I wouldn't say all, mate. Using the aforementioned example of Romania, it didn't require a sponsor per se. It just took the will of the people.

Ahhh AA. You drank the damned Koolaid... There are many instances where NATO needs to get involved. And correspondingly the countries that agree and then go and do something for the greater good. But America does an awful lot, unilaterally, to protect American interests only. And not always security interests IMO.

WMD in Iraq? Me thinks they were invented to justify going there...

Damn Americans. How many times in the last century did they get involved in conflicts which did not directly involve them? Like WWI and WWII.

Timing in such matters is always interesting eh?

What I find interesting is the extreme poverty on so many countries! I believe that many of our aid groups go in and do the things that need doing, but no more sending in money for the projects that ends up in the president for life's or politicians bank account, or on Imelda Marcus' feet, but building water wells, homes, schools etc, through their own company or through the Red Cross. I sure believe in taking a per centage of our gross national product and use it for aid to other countries.
Canada does a lot of aid, but nowhere close to the 1.8% that Bono was trying to get it to commit.
Troops dying , what a horrow story, especially since if you look at the history of the country you might come to the conclusion that since 3000 years ago, there have been many countries who have invaded and all ended up losing lives and then getting out.
With AlQueda, there how can we expect to be suuccessful? What would you call successful? What are our troops trying to accomplish?

I am watching a documentary on Nelson Mandela in South Africa , a result of cutting back costs to basic overpriced $35 per month cable, and it states 50% unemployment.up from 15% when the whites were in power.
Maybe we need more whites in power?
And donate to Cure & Care for Leprosy for $29 per month (an advertisement).
Canada has plenty of poor people, plenty of unemployed, a 3rd world class on the reservations, and all over certain parts of the City.
We figure out a single parent with 3 children needs $1500 per month (I am just guessing), and then we give that person $900 to survive on!
Poverty everywhere! South Africa has more poor people than when the whites were in power. Do you believe it? No health insurance, no safety net, no food, no schooling.

More dead- Helicpter with 16 civilians and another and another Canadian gone.
Thank goodness Harper has given a date , next year?, when all our Canadian soldiers will be out. Let the Afghans look after their own country.
The only thing that we need from that country is the cocaine! For our hospitals!
If our government and the US government had any COMMON sense, which they do not, they would contract to purchase all the production, and cut out the crooks who were dealing, and reduce the cost by ten fold!
I

Most of the trouble is they have not had the chance to look after it for too long . One dictator or another one religious group or another . What ever we do will be undone by the next group or leader . To bad so many lives are lost for this .