03-14-2004, 12:05 AM
"Your" leaders?
What Canadian wallet was fattened by any stand at all in the "war on terror"? By my count, we've lost money twice: once for sending considerable support into Afghanistan, and once again for missing out on reconstruction lucre which could have been ours with even a symbolic contribution.
France and Russia are not innocent of the charge of opportunism. But Canada? I don't think that accusation holds water.
"What would have happened if we had taken that mentality towards the Soviet Union (although some did)?"
What, not eliminating the Soviet Union? That *was* the attitude you took, and thanks for not blowing up the world by trying it the other way. If you pursued the cold war with half the belligerence you've shown lately, your nation would have been vaporized. Instead, you tried a policy remarkable for its non-suicidiality: containment. You chose to deal with the problem in more nuanced, slow ways that don't incite nuclear wars. There were plenty of people who would have been just fine with hunting down communism at any cost. They were callet McCarthyites, and one of the worst things ever to happen to your country.
Similarily, if your idea for fighting terrorism is to declare war on country after country, or to evaporate fundamental freedoms in the name of security, my support for you is exactly zero. If you think you can beat terrorism this way, I think you're either being naive with the lives of others, or outright stupid. There may be ways to significantly set back terrorism. Keep the intelligence networks tight. Undercut support for terrorist networks by removing their causes. Offer support to populist governments rather than oppressive ones. International police actions, rather than full-scale wars.
I don't find it at all surprising that I find your current policy counterproductive. And, since I think your policies are driving you farther from any reasonable objective (like reducing the actual threat of terrorism), of course I'm against it.
Jester
What Canadian wallet was fattened by any stand at all in the "war on terror"? By my count, we've lost money twice: once for sending considerable support into Afghanistan, and once again for missing out on reconstruction lucre which could have been ours with even a symbolic contribution.
France and Russia are not innocent of the charge of opportunism. But Canada? I don't think that accusation holds water.
"What would have happened if we had taken that mentality towards the Soviet Union (although some did)?"
What, not eliminating the Soviet Union? That *was* the attitude you took, and thanks for not blowing up the world by trying it the other way. If you pursued the cold war with half the belligerence you've shown lately, your nation would have been vaporized. Instead, you tried a policy remarkable for its non-suicidiality: containment. You chose to deal with the problem in more nuanced, slow ways that don't incite nuclear wars. There were plenty of people who would have been just fine with hunting down communism at any cost. They were callet McCarthyites, and one of the worst things ever to happen to your country.
Similarily, if your idea for fighting terrorism is to declare war on country after country, or to evaporate fundamental freedoms in the name of security, my support for you is exactly zero. If you think you can beat terrorism this way, I think you're either being naive with the lives of others, or outright stupid. There may be ways to significantly set back terrorism. Keep the intelligence networks tight. Undercut support for terrorist networks by removing their causes. Offer support to populist governments rather than oppressive ones. International police actions, rather than full-scale wars.
I don't find it at all surprising that I find your current policy counterproductive. And, since I think your policies are driving you farther from any reasonable objective (like reducing the actual threat of terrorism), of course I'm against it.
Jester