# The world order take II -more voters please ;-)



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I've listed 5 different world geopolitical structures that either exist in some form, could be a result over the next while or have existed within history.

You pick one ranking for each question...... how you would view THAT world order in your own opinion.

• A safe and progressive world

•  Best of bad choices

•  No better or worse than other times in history

•  An undesirable world

It's sort of geared to get a picture of what ehMacians/Canadians see as acceptable, undesirable or a good given there will never be a perfect solution.

Comments welcome. I'm not 100% sure I've structured the scenarios or the ranking questions in the best way but hey it's a learning curve. 

I'm trying for choices that actually might be or are in reality not in theory and trying to see your assessment of each.  

I'll leave it open - votes and comments appreciated

[ January 16, 2004, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## lindmar (Nov 13, 2003)

Thats a great poll.

We live in Scary times.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Well done, except that I would have preferred to see one additional question. 

"A strong UN with US as an enthusiastic partner"

I know, it may seem like a pipedream, but I honestly believe that it would prove to be the best of all possible outcomes. The fact that the UN at that point would probably bear little resemblance to the UN of today is all the better since the current model simply isn't working and to get the US involved in as a full partner would mean dramatically altering it's structure. However since that would be done in consultation with other senior UN countries, the results would, presumably be much more palatable.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

UN/US
See comment about theory versus reality.  

We would All vote for that but this is realpolitik.
Triage - you don't like any a whole bunch - what world of these seems most reasonable cuz likely one of them is going to BE reality.

Explanations why appreciated.  

Hmmmmm I just voted myself and I had to think about it







I guess that means it's reasonably neutral wording.

Interesting results....more please.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> "A strong UN with US as an enthusiastic partner"


only way that is going to happen is the U in UN stands for United States of America

the concept of a strong UN and a with an enthusiastic US are incompatible
the neo-con strategy needs have Amerika on top with no room for anyone else
"you are with us or against us"

only way a strong US and a strong UN could exist is in a Gene Rodenberry novel

Gene, we miss ya'.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm with Guinness on this one. A strong and totally reformed UN with the USA as a full and willing partner is the best of all worlds, and should have been included as one of the choices on the poll.

The current UN is a total mess. It is gridlocked by some influential partners who seem to be willing to sell off their veto vote for future considerations. 

Also...I would like a reformed UN to be made up solely of countries where the people who live in that country actually had a say in who was running it. Read: real elections...no countries with "President's for Life" may apply for membership.

This would put incredible pressure on some of the remaining dictatorships to let their people participate in free elections. Without membership in the "New UN" a country would not benefit from preferential trade agreements or be able to expect protection in time of aggressive behavior by others.

Could be the thin edge of the wedge that would drive the last of the unelected tyrants from power. I see this as a good thing.

I also see a totally reformed UN in the near future. WITH the USA as a willing and enthusiastic partner. The process is already under way.

Watch and see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well Gerry just like your rose coloured view "should" is an iffy word in realpolitick.

The poll represents likely scenarios or even existing ones.
You are quite able to start your own poll 

Lets see - I'll start you with one

Bush will be crowned emperor life - after all he's planning space projects out to 2014 as if he's going to still be in charge

• A safe and progressive world

•  Best of bad choices

•  No better or worse than other times in history

•  An undesirable world?

The real world is not "us or them" - it's a spectrum of choices and shades of both interpretation and potential.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc...

"Bush will be crowned emperor life"?

I assume you meant "Emperor for Life" ?









Are you joking? Or are you serious?

If it's the former, then it's a tad lame because George W. could easily be defeated by the right Democratic candidate, under favorable conditions.

That candidate (John Edwards, IMHO) and those conditions, do not exist at this point in time. This could change before the election. Even I know this.

If you are being serious....

Then I suggest you change your meds (and switch to decaf)...or stop surfing the same sites that macspectrum seems to favor.

Because a "President for Life" is just NOT gonna happen in the US of A! Not now...not EVER!!

There are 300 million PLUS American citizens...and this includes the miltary...who would not stand for it.

Not a chance in hell.

















Trust me on this.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>>MacDoc: We would All vote for that but this is realpolitik.


Hogwash, MacDoc.

RealPolitik tells me that this is just as likely an outcome as at least three of your polls options. 

Neither of the American Hegemony items are any more unlikely viewpoints. The danger presented by the current Bush regime is not that they will successfully build America into a viable international empire (economic or otherwise) but rather the complete and total collapse of most of the worlds economies that would follow in their attempt. Likewise, the option for a weak UN with a reluctant US partnership is so unlikely as to be not even a consideration, for there can be no going back now on the stated US position. Even a change in governments in November would not appreciably change things. Far to many Americans are convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the UN can no longer function without massive changes. 

The most likely, and in my estimation, most preferable outcome would be for the first world nations to move into the UN, disolve the security council as it exists and replace it with an economic council that would put real teeth into the building of a viable, sane global economy. This, by virtue of the position of the US economy (even given the state of disrepair that GWB is allowing it to devolve into) would require the willing participation of the US. However, since the balance of the worlds economies, particularly if we include the new China - which we must - would create an environment were the US would no longer be the most loudly heard voice.

Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacNutt: There are 300 million PLUS American citizens...and this includes the miltary...who would not stand for it.

I agree whole heartedly with you on this one. America is simply not, nor is likely to any time in the near future, going to accept a " -for-life" leader of any sort. 

A better question would be whether they would or could recognize the problem if it was dressed up in the guise of a political party, with one president after another being elected and driving an agenda which was sponsored by a fascist type organization.

Mike


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

or the same family being president?
dadday, dubya and soon to be jeb


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacSpectrum: or the same family being president?
dadday, dubya and soon to be jeb 


Now that's an interesting thought. I doubt, however, that Jeb will ever be President. I somehow don't see him as presidential material, although I'm not sure why. Good point, however, as he has just turned 50 and so would be available and ready at the end of brother George's second term (assuming George gets re-elected).

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ummm Guiness general concensus is there is currently an American hegemony and most people seemed to see this as they voted a bit more in favour of the one under a different US administration than the current one.

It's interesting that ther is a perception that off setting power blocs offer a reasonable if not ideal solution but htat a world body like the UN even if weak still has a role to play.

As for the Bush regime - my tongue was far too deep in my cheek to even bother to answer Macnutt's assertion that I might be serious. I just let him dig himself a bit deeper.

That said multiple Bushs do look pretty dynastic in keeping with the oligarchy the US has become.

BTW the US army is not allowed to intervene in US domestic issues ( hangover from Rome - strange eh ) it's always the National Guard that is called out.

The US has continually resisted world bodies starting with the League of Nations, the UN and the World Court so how can you possibly envision a willing US. Gonna take a big sea change for that to come about.

The world will likely start to see some more power balance as China and EU graow with UN certainly the voice for the smaller nations amongst the Power blocs.

I think the US dollar versus EU is indicative of that.

A powerful UN with the US onside would have been voted ideal so why bother putting it in.
The questions are just different enough to make the choices thought provoking and none an obvious winner tho no UN was clearly unpopular.. IMNSHO


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: BTW the US army is not allowed to intervene in US domestic issues ( hangover from Rome - strange eh ) it's always the National Guard that is called out.

That is a common misconception. The 82nd Airborne Division, for instance, ran the security detail for the Little Rock Seven during the school integration problems in the early 60's. Similarly, the 1st Infantry was deployed in Los Angeles during the Watts riots.

>> MacDoc: ... general concensus is there is currently an American hegemony and most people seemed to see this ... 

General consensus during the 14th century was that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe. General consensus does not mean correct!

>>MacDoc: Gonna take a big sea change for that to come about.

Absolutely. No particular reason not to expect such a sea change in my view. The US, in my opinion, is currently undergoing the beginnings of such a sea change. I believe that it will become apparent to most, over the next few years, that there are systemic problems with the US model vis-a-vis international relations. A very serious financial crisis is looming and I think that it will further accelerate the coming changes, to the dismay of the neo-conservative movement.

Also I don't see any particular problem with the US taking a leadership role in a new and revitalized UN. Had they done so fifty years ago, we would have a much different world today.

Mike


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The US, in my opinion, is currently undergoing the beginnings of such a sea change.


i think i may live to see the day the Amerikan empire falls
something about empires that use eagles as monikers...
Rome, Nazi Germany....

usually the last stage of empires is fortress building
sorta like a star becoming a red giant
big and puffy, not much energy but soon to be doomed
Amerika will collapse under its own weight from decaying infrastructure
the PTB (Powers That Be) are far too myopic on their own wallets and feeding troughs to really give a damn about the elctorate, unless it is to garner votes during an election year

the u.s. is an example of capitalism run rampant with its natural conclusion being the few owning almost all - sorta like feudal england and china

the signs are all there...
let's wait to see what happens


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacSpectrum: the u.s. is an example of capitalism run rampant with its natural conclusion being the few owning almost all - sorta like feudal england and china

Exactly. Another more recent example would be the collapse of the British Empire at the turn of the last century. It in fact makes interesting reading to review the last days of Britain's predominance. Supreme military power, incredible financial power, etc etc.

Check out some of the early works on Winston Churchill to see just how similar the situations are.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ummm Mike if there is no hegemony then why are you suggesting works that compare the current American situation to Britain at the height of it's power.









There was an earlier thread showing views from around the world that clearly indicated - even from within the US - that empire or hegemony is EXACTLY what exists right now.

If it walks like duck
Quacks like a duck
By cracky it's a...............  

Don't split hairs - it's a hegemony, empire what ever and it's currently teetering with two possible directions.

Lose the attitude and get things accomplished at home.

Continue the adventurism and incredible miltary expenditure and get itself and the world into serious difficulty both economic an world tensions.

As the election figures show it's 50/50 which way and never ever so wide a gap.

Butterfly wings in play here folks.









I do not believe the US without a shattering upheaval will join in the UN, World Court and become one amongst many.

Hell they don't even abide by the WTO rulings.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> Don't split hairs - it's a hegemony, empire what ever and it's currently teetering with two possible directions.

I really don't dispute the hegemonic nature of the current American administration (the consensus thing was really just a reaction to one of my pet peeves - the perception and reality thing). What I do dispute is just what can, should, or could be done about it. Whether we like it or not, America is going to re-shape the world over the next five years. I believe that the American people, however, are fundamentally a good and peace loving people and that when, over the course of those five years the tough decisions have to be made, they will be made and out of the resulting upheaval will come a new and revitalized UN. However it will be a UN within which the United States will play a much more important role. We may not like it, but hey, Albertan's don't like the role Ontario plays in Confederation. 

Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

As for the British Empire comparisons, check out this as an interesting viewpoint. Although this author's opinions argue against the similarities, how does that expression go "Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose"

Two Hegemonies 

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The peace loving people are being scared to death by their government and media and you KNOW US citizens by and large do not have the same world perspective Europeans and Canadians have. Hence the huge split in for and against the Shrub.

The saving grace always was the US being perceived as a reluctant imperial power but that's where the change has occurred.
No longer reluctant but now with an ordained mission and agenda.  

The understanding that the Iraq attack was front and center prior to 9/11 changes a whole lot of things in my mind.

I really think the US - any admin has an issue with sovereignity thos Bush Sr was admirable in his approach.
From the Iraqi peoples view he did the wrong thing but from the world view and Arab street for exactly the right reasons. 
Iraq is out of Kuwait - that's the mandate. Stop and go home.

Very admirable and I was not US bashing at that time tho there were plenty of other issues to rai against - puttnig that coalition together was quite a feat of diplomacy.
To bad it all got squandered.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Guinness...

We are again on the very same wavelength. I can't remember when I have read a series of posts from an ehmac citizen that I have so totally agreed with, on this level.

Except for one small detail...

I think that what George W. is currently accomplishing on the world stage...specifically to do with the so-called "rogue states" goes wayyy beyond what anyone (especially ME) expected of him!

This guy is taking a totally different tact from any of his predecessors. And it seems to be WORKING!

For the very first time in several decades, all sorts of new possibilities are opening up in the middle east! And pretty much ALL of the other Bad Guys on the planet are sitting up and taking notice.

Forgive me if I see this as a good thing.  

As for a major economic downturn in the USA....

Sorry, I just don't see it happening. Too many people from too many other cultures have settled in the States...and they are wayyy too hungry to make it BIG...in record time... to let that happen.

This is, in my mind, the single biggest strength they have. They will power the US economy to new heights in the upcoming decades. No matter what else happens.

The United States attracts the very best and brightest from all over the world. 

Including the very best and brightest from Canada.

This is fact.

They will be falling all over themselves to make a better life for themselves. And, in so doing, will enrich their new chosen country in a very BIG way!

Watch and see.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Guiness...

I read 'Two Hegemonies' and found it interesting and enlightening. Especially poignant, was the relationship between England and Iraq at the turn of the century (to 1917) prompting me to question if Tony Blair perceives England's involvement (in Iraq) as an opportunity to recoup some of his country's 'hegemony' position in the world. Or to superficially regain past glory. While the questions may seem frivolous, I can't, at this juncture, detect any rationale for England's involvement in the INVASION of Iraq. While oil is an obvious incentive, Tony Blair's fervor to be involved in the invasion of Iraq leaves many questions unanswered. Are there any long term gains for England? Or short term gains for Tony Blair?

Rather than try to moralize, I would like to better understand the cultural, political, and internal economic effects of the Americanization of economies around the world since 1945. I'd like to more accurately understand the growing insurrection against US involvement in countries in spite of, for example, helping Iraq be rid of the dictator, Saddam Hussein. What are the long term effects if other countries begin rejecting US involvement in their internal affairs?

Equally puzzling, is the continued references by US administrators that the USA is not empire-building, while continuing the process of deciding what type of democracy in Iraq is, or will be, acceptable to the USA.

If 'hegemony' is synonymous with 'empire', then is US dominance being challenged by mercenary groups other than Al Qaeda? Are those pockets of insurgents scattered around the world rebelling only against foreign (US) economic influence and control?

Real or perceived, it becomes a catch 22 for the US and its' allies. The morality of protecting against the killing of innocent civilians has to be maintained. However, it can't be achieved without seeming to be attempting to control said countries abroad. It must be difficult for the populace of these nations as they observe the USA bringing in their superior military machine to quell uprisings, while the history of how other countries have evolved through the years as a result of American presence in other countries, is still fresh in their minds. 

Thus, regardless of the motives, the present US administration is being painted with the same brush as it's predecessors. Anything and everything they do today, or in the future , in most cases, will be viewed as robbing the country(s) of their sovereignty(s) in efforts to satisfy the invaders' self-serving (ulterior) motives.

Meanwhile, I can't perceive China becoming Americanized or even changing to western democracy as we practice it today. Instead, I see it playing the game to win. If indeed empires and/or hegemonies have a short life-span, then China is positioning itself to be the next super-power. As I mentioned before on another thread, China is appearing, on the surface, to be accepting democracy by allowing western technology to establish manufacturing in the country as free training facilities for the day the USA falls. China has too deeply an entrenched culture to give it all up in 5 to 10 years. I strongly suspect they too have ulterior motives.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I strongly suspect they too have ulterior motives.


welcome to geo-politics


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good thoughtful post darn tootin - there are probably 15 essays in there.

One issue that I have yet to see discussed thoroughly here and you bring it up at the end. Democracy may not be the only or even a good way of governing.
China of late has quite rationally moved to modernize much of it's society and manufacturing....why is that seen as inducing or in conjunction with democracy.
Certainly Hong Kong is an issue as is Taiwan - China is almost as England did a few hundred years back conducting regional experiments in areas of governance - test case isolated areas of the nation.

If you look at nations which have surged they are almost always a result of very strong and sustained leadership.

I belive the US might have elected FDR another 4 years - look at that span and the growth as the US matured.

The same with Trudeau here an din a less dramatic manner Teflon man's reign rightfully described as a benign dictatorship - and one that continues under a very similar economic hand.

Maggie Thatcher, Gorbachev, Mao, Fidel, Tito, Ataturk, Shaka Zuku, FDR, Stalin and many other strong leaders have wrestled their nations into different paths for better or worse.
While some countries have prospered under "rule by committee" very few have been able to pull off any sort of fundamental change in direction without a significant stay by one leader with vision.

I find it odd that the immense experience of ex Presidents - and some of that burnished with wisdom of hindsight is not more in vogue in the US.

Some nations have both PM and President and one wonders if a continuity in leadership of that sort is a preferable method.
Iknow the Senate is supposed to perform a similar role but it's toothless and a political plum here.

The US obviously fears a long term presidency with the 2 term restriction.

If you look at the US right now it's almost 18 months of partisan positioning, enormous expenditure of funds and strangely awkward strategies focused entirely on the election.
Ontario was the same way with lots of juggling jockeying and promises and very little truth.
I credit the long run of Martin far more than Chretien with our current reasonable situation.
Greenspan to some extent in the US.

How do we translate experience over time in to nationally useful effort with the convulsions of too frequent elections.

This is critically true of emerging nations where like China a ruling elite is executing a very long term plan for growth and modernization.
FDR bullied America out of it's depression and guided through most of the war.
Here you had two very strong leaders relatively unhampered by political concerns. ( Churchill the other ).

We're still primates and like our alpha males to lead. Are we missig some aspect in the political system that works with that reality.

Britain has the royal family somewhat in that role with Parliament as the changeable factor the royals as the constancy factor.

Certainly China has some aspets of change over time as new leaders arse. So their constancy is the single party with changes in the central commitee.

I look at Adrienne Clarkson as somewhat playing that role internationally as did Stephen Lewis at the UN.
The senate here is a joke - is there some other mechanism that would provide a consistency over time and damp out the erratic direction that accompanies party change and rapid roll over of people in elected positions??

Is China perhaps showing the way in some manner.

Is Europe - the EU is a new form of governing - do we have things to learn there.

Many questions no easy answers


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: The saving grace always was the US being perceived as a reluctant imperial power but that's where the change has occurred.
No longer reluctant but now with an ordained mission and agenda. <<

You see, that's the whole point. I think that once the American people see GWB's adventures for what they truly are, the change will come.

Mike


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macdoc...

Government systems in democratic countries are difficult to change as new or RADICAL ideas are usually out of step with traditional governing systems already in power.

As for new types of democracy, we have an example in our own Canada... we have an old traditional method of governing that is even older than Canada as a nation.

CONSENSUS GOVERNMENT has been in Canada and continues to function successfully in the far north.

No parties... no warlords... no affiliation to any other loyalties except to one's constituents. It's a job one keeps until one screws up.

Thus policies are decided in the best interest of the majority as well as the individual communities. To succumb to another member is never viewed as being disloyal to 'the party'.

Under such regimes, elected people can be replaced if they don't perform, or have motives that are not in the best interest of northern constituents.

If we modeled our governments from 'up north' it would then behoove members NOT to gang-up together, as that would be repetition of the feudal systems that trip up our present governments on a daily basis.

Too many policies and decisions are designed for future re-elections!

Democracy is not a type or form of government... it is a state if mind. If you fear your government, you don't have democracy. If you agree laws are meant to protect and not control... you have democracy.

One of the most important elements in the structure of a country, is how individual privacies are maintained or threatened.

A government that can, or is more beneficial to a particular group or groups within a nation, at the exclusion of others... is hardly a democracy. That's what we have in Canada.

Macdoc... you would like to see a leader of choice able to stay in office long enough to affect generational change. While acceptable in principle, power is known to corrupt, and we see it in every party that has ruled parliament in Canada.

So how can those natural tendencies be contained and still maintain good government... get rid of the feudal systems, and make right-of-recall a tool of the electorate.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacNutt: This guy is taking a totally different tact from any of his predecessors. And it seems to be WORKING! <<

"Seems" is such a funny word isn't it? The glass seems to be half full to you and half empty to me. The future seems rosy to one and danger-red to another. The President's - did I put that apostrophe in correctly? - methods seem successful to you and dangerously off-course to me.

Under the best of conditions, the President actions will take the world, kicking and screaming into a new and glorious future. Under less than ideal conditions the situation could collapse around the Coalitions forces and Iraq and the middle-east would quickly become a disaster of immense proportions.

>> MacNutt: or the very first time in several decades, all sorts of new possibilities are opening up in the middle east! And pretty much ALL of the other Bad Guys on the planet are sitting up and taking notice. <<

The middle-eastern ruling classes are now, and have been for generations, masters of self-preservation. The American problem, historically, has been that they always seem quite willing to accept the cosmetic changes that develop in order to meet the requirements of their notoriously short attention spans. As long as it looks good in the press and on TV, the Americans can go away while giving themselves a hearty pat on the back. What is needed in the middle-east are changes of substance. Not of the Khaddafi type in Libya or the examples currently surfacing in Syria. Those may look good on paper, but will have no more long term effect than they did in Nicaragua, Chile, or Panama.

Are there great possibilities? Yes, in spades.

Can the American's take advantage of those possibilities and institute changes of substance rather than cosmetics? Well, the possibility is certainly out there, however I am yet to be convinced that a President who had to lie his way into war, can achieve any of the greatness you seem to adorn him with.

>>MacNutt: Too many people from too many other cultures have settled in the States...and they are wayyy too hungry to make it BIG...in record time... to let that happen. <<

The trouble is, none of them can find jobs anymore. The current economic recovery in the US looks great on paper, but it is lacking the human factor. It has always been the greatness of the American middle-classes which have driven the US to such dynamic growth spurts. That middle class is rapidly disappearing as industry ships more and more jobs off-shore, a process which isn't going to change any time soon for simple competetive reasons. IBM announced today that they are getting ready to add almost 15,000 people to their payroll over the next 18 months. That's the kind of news that the US economy needs to hear, until you read the fine print and discover that less than 10% of those jobs will be US based.

Secondly, Bush's profligate military spending habits form a huge percentage of the current economic growth, as much as 25% by some estimates. Those numbers can not be maintained. The US deficit has to be addressed and soon. The way I see it, Bush will continue to artifically support the economy until the elections in November. At that point, whoever wins will have no option but to devalue the American dollar, albeit, they will do it with strict money controls rather than actually devaluing the currency, so as to make the deficit a more controllable number. Remember, most of the US current deficit is covered through foreign bond issues. When the dollar falls as much and as far I as I see it - and I'm talking a .90 or .95 cent Canadian dollar by next year - huge problems will begin to surface for the US. This will, I really fear, lead to period of massive unrest in the already overstrained middle-classes and a huge problem for the country.

MIke


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Great post, DarnTootin!

>> DarnTootin: ... then is US dominance being challenged by mercenary groups other than Al Qaeda? Are those pockets of insurgents scattered around the world rebelling only against foreign (US) economic influence and control? <<

This raises a question which has been niggling away at the back of my mind for the past couple of weeks. How many terrorists are we actually talking about here? Is the US being driven to such extreme measures as HomeLand Security is proposing by a huge international brotherhood of conspirators or a very small number of relatively insignificant religious fundamentalists? Where are the numbers? Where are the terrorists?

>> DarnTootin: Thus, regardless of the motives, the present US administration is being painted with the same brush as it's predecessors. Anything and everything they do today, or in the future , in most cases, will be viewed as robbing the country(s) of their sovereignty(s) in efforts to satisfy the invaders' self-serving (ulterior) motives.<<

To true! Sadly, I don't know if the US can do anything about it. They are currently paying the price for years of abuses. Even if Bush was currently acting with the best of intentions, his motives will always be suspect. This forces the US to bull ahead and robs them of any opportunity to mediate circumstances more into their favour.

As far as government goes, I'm with MacDoc. I'm not entirely convinced that democracy, as currently defined and implemented by the Western nations is the be all and end all. I certainly feel that it can *not* be readily put into place in locales such as Afghanistan or even Iraq. I believe that for democracy to flourish as it has for us, certain preconditions must exist. There must be a minimally effective universal educational system, there must be a workable and unfettered communications system, and, finally, there must be a generations long period of relative security for the process to develop. I don't foresee any of those things being put into place in Afghanistan. Iraq has a chance because they at least have the basic infrastructure. It's the security angle that worries me there.

Mike


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Thanks Guiness...

I'm just waiting for a reply from Macdoc, before I comment to both of you. He has also brought forward some interesting points, and my last reply was prompted by his post.

Especially on democracy.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Guiness...



> This raises a question which has been niggling away at the back of my mind for the past couple of weeks. How many terrorists are we actually talking about here? Is the US being driven to such extreme measures as HomeLand Security is proposing by a huge international brotherhood of conspirators or a very small number of relatively insignificant religious fundamentalists? Where are the numbers? Where are the terrorists?


Al Qaeda's success lies in providing training for anyone with the money to pay for it. They train men (and women?) for guerrilla warfare. While the end results are different, we also train people from other countries in regular warfare with the assumptions the training will be used for 'honourable' purposes, as do the Americans and other weapon-manufacturing countries.

Again, putting morality aside, all are equal in their choices to train whomever they please. It is expected however, that those being trained in Canada, or by Canadians for example, harbour the same ideologies as the training nation. As do the trainers of guerrilla warfare share common causes as the trainees do. What is being ignored, to a degree, is that these guerrillas usually attack countries whose soldiers are trained to battle against soldiers from nations with the same type of training.

A guerrilla warrior's dream! The soldiers know how to fight other soldiers, but not well-trained guerrillas. However, guerrillas can fight both soldiers and other guerrillas.

Would we dare arm our soldiers with plastic eating utensils? How intense their training must be! Makes RAMBO look like a boy-scout.

So 'Tactical warfare' must have different meanings to both entities.

From guerrillas' point of view, do they see themselves as freedom fighters instead of terrorists? If so, there may be more to this business of stereotyping "terrorists" than meets the spin-doctored eye!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Good job Darntootn’ and Guiness! Very insightful.

I think we have a problem with the term democracy. Democracy is simply one person one vote - majority rules. Even the USSR had democracy.  

What we think of as democracy also entails rights and freedoms and the protection provided by and for them. Limiting the powerful and empowering the weak.  

The USA always insists on the establishment of Democracy and a capitalist system. In this scenario the Golden rule applies to wit the person with the gold rules.  

If we look at the invasion of Iraq, the Jr. Shrub diverted all the attention after 9/11 from his friends and backers (the Bin Ladens) the Saudis and transferred the anger and even hatred towards Saddam Hussein.

Why Saddam Hussein? Because Jr. and the oil cartel ...er administration wanted Iraq’s oil from the day they (stole) the election. Democracy? The USA wants *their* version of democratic capitalism without the rights, freedoms and controls over a powerful elite.  

Homeland security is an attempt to do at home those things that they insist happens abroad and the USA constitution forbids. The "RIGHT" in the USA wants democratic capitalism just like a Corporation provides.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> Darntootin: So 'Tactical warfare' must have different meanings to both entities.

The primary difference between the guerilla/freedom/terror fighter and the traditional military is the tactical doctrine known as "take and hold". That is that the traditional military must capture an objective and hold it against the enemy, thereby granting security to the local inhabitants and allowing for the introduction of the architects of social change who regularize and stabilize the objectives population base. The guerilla, on the other hand is not particularly interested in "take and hold". He wants to "strike and recover", that is advance on the enemy, strike hard, fast and, ideally, with devastating results, and then recover his troops to a secure area where they can plan their next attack. The Vietnam War is a classic example fo what happens when a traditional army tries to fight by the guerilla rules. They can't win. As MacDoc pointed out, it happened to the Romans, the British, and in VietNam.

My thought is that we and the Americans may in fact be placing way to much importance in the belief that these terror/freedom/guerilla fighters can cause substantially more damage to us than they in fact can. In doing so the Americans are concentrating there efforts on a global version of fighting by your opponents rules. Only they are mixing it in with a dose of "take and hold" - Iraq. My concern is that in splitting their strategic doctrine, they will do neither well enough to win.

Mike


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Guiness...



> My thought is that we and the Americans may in fact be placing way to much importance in the belief that these terror/freedom/guerrilla fighters can cause substantially more damage to us than they in fact can.


Hmmm... May I separate the above catagories for a moment?

_Terrorist_ - As the name implies - causes havoc with no particular goal other than to disrupt the *enemy* and to instill fear.

_Freedom Fighter_ - Fighting for something lost... to regain power or freedom from??

_Guerrilla fighter_ - Similar to freedom fighter above, but using different tactics, but also with a particular purpose or goal.

See if I can explain my own question:

Which of the above caused the damage on Sept 11, 2001? Is there some other entity missing from the list? Could another group not affiliated to radical organizations have coerced, enticed, or turned a blind eye in the knowledge any of the above might attack the WTC? How hard would it be to _ use_ terrorists, or freedom fighter etc., for another's gains? Such as to justify reasons to begin attacking countries in the middle east!


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> How hard would it be to use terrorists, or freedom fighter ...

Not hard at all, I don't think, and therein lies the problem. Anyone could use them, but only we can prevent them. To do that, however, we must delve into the root causes and deal with the issues of substance which have lead to a group of people taking such drastic steps. We must get to the breeding ground of such discontent and develop strategies to educate the populace, bringing them to the state of mind where they can see for themselves that there are more effective alternatives. We must provide the communications tools which will allow the dissemination of this information throughout the target population group. Looked at in this fashion it could be pointed out that the current Coalition policy is not only poorly devised, but is in fact counter-productive in that it destroys the basic infrastructure that we must seek to put into place.

Mike


----------



## blue sky (Oct 24, 2003)

> Coalition policy is not only poorly devised, but is in fact counter-productive in that it destroys the basic infrastructure that we must seek to put into place.


You are under the impression that the coalition did not intend to do this in the first place, in order to achieve some other goal.

As for your concept of "educating the populace" in order to circumvent the rise of a popular/freedom/terrorist/revolutionary group, that is very noble. After all, any nation's citizens would gladly believe what we tell them, over what someone of their own persuasion would say, right ?  

The Americans, and in this case, the British, are just not credible. Too much distrust, not just from the inhabitants of the countries they have "saved", but from most of the rest of the world.

Now, if you can come up with someone who is totally credible and have that individual (or group) teach/educate/demonstrate the alternatives, you could achieve a reduction in the guerilla/terrorist following.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> Blue Sky: As for your concept of "educating the populace" in order to circumvent the rise of a popular/freedom/terrorist/revolutionary group, ...

You are right, Blue, I didn't phrase that particularly well did I. I would suggest that the more correct term would be to provide the means for them to educate themselves.

Thanks for pointing that out as it makes more than a small difference in the argument doesn't it?

Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> Blue Sky: Now, if you can come up with someone who is totally credible and have that individual (or group) teach/educate/demonstrate the alternatives, you could achieve a reduction in the guerilla/terrorist following. <<


UNESCO works for me.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow two interwoven threads.

DT - I'd like to move your post to a new thread called Democracy and it's alternatives as the cities have a similar structure and growing power - I'd been following Nunavit. It calls on a different set of citizen assumptions I believe.

••••

"We must get to the breeding ground of such discontent and develop strategies to educate the populace, bringing them to the state of mind where they can see for themselves that there are more effective alternatives. We must provide the communications tools which will allow the dissemination of this information throughout the target population group."

well it's about time  

The Irish stopped bombing London ( for now ) because..........

Al Qaeda has certain goals.
US out of Saudi - that's been done
US out of middle east - oops it's worse
US support of Israel stop - arrrgh the underlying no win

Now I agree the US and Britain given their histories in the regin cannot ever gain "hearts and mnds" so they have to leave Iraq- there is no other option other than total imperial roles perhaps of the entire middle east with continual ongoing revolt in the "provinces".

So what to do

the Saudi's have a problem right now with Al Qaeda and many sympathize because the US is there.

Get out and let the Saudi's clean up Al Qaeda with world "behind the scenes help"
I don't believe the Pan Arabic peoples want to be perceived as pariahs - the Arab street - especially if a moderate Iran emerges and regardless of whether it does MUST be allowed without the continual meddling and playing one off against the other to deal with it's own dirty laundry. Al Qaeda hit the Saudis......let them deal with it.

The killer is Israel/Palestine







Hey the Romans turfed the Jews - - now the place is in turmoil.
No easy answers
4000 years and counting.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: well it's about time ...

Now, David, you know that I have always supported this view. I, however, also believe that no one can accomplish the above without dealing with the pre-condition - security. Education and communication cannot flourish in a free and unfettered manner without a secure environment and the only way to achieve that is with troops on the ground such as is currently the case in Afghanistan. I certainly would not trust the Saudis to accomplish this task, nor any other pan-arabic group by themselves, it must be an international effort lead by the UN - or some other internationally sanctioned organization.

To suggest that the US and GB pull out of the middle-east without a viable international peacekeeping alternative is utter madness and would solve exactly zero, nuthin', nada.

As far as Israel and Palestine goes, I do not believe that there is going to be any viable long term solution to that issue until people get straight in their own minds the difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. The idea that Israel should be able to create a Jewish state on the grounds that to allow Palestinians to participate as citizens would negate their right to right to a Jewish homeland is ludicrous. 

Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: The Irish stopped bombing London ( for now ) because..........

Don't kid yourself. They stopped bombing London because the general population of Ireland, North and South, Catholic and Protestant decided that it was wrong. They could make that judgement, however, because they had a system of education and communication which allowed the population to experience the truth of the matter, and they have that infrastructure available because of the secure environment which has existed to build it. 

Mike


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Guinness wrote...

"To suggest that the US and GB pull out of the middle east without a viable peacekeeping force to take their place would be utter madness....it would accomplish absolutely nothing. Nada..."

*EXACTLY* . I'm glad someone else can see that here. I'm so tired of hearing the "pull out NOW" group spewing their shortsighted nonsense! Much has been gained...many lives lost in the process.

ALL of it would be wasted if the coalition just broke camp and went home right at this moment. We'd have a brand new set of dictators to deal with in rather short order. 

We are on the edge of a brand new reality in this troubled part of the world. One that is vastly better than what came before it. Don't suggest that we throw it all away now.

Not for one minute.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacNutt: EXACTLY . I'm glad someone else can see that here ... wasted if the coalition just broke camp and went home <<

You misunderstand my position, MacNutt. The best thing that could happen right now would be for the US and GB to announce that they are pulling out and that their forces will be replace by an Internationally sanctioned Peacekeeping Force.

>> MacNutt: We'd have a brand new set of dictators to deal with in rather short order. <<

Based upon the historical evidence of American and British meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, I see very little reason to suspect that we're not going to end up with a new set of dictators to deal with anyway. 

Mike


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Guinness...

George W. made quite an impassioned speech during his recent visit to Britain. In it, he denounced the former policies of all of his predecessors when dealing with dictators...or in setting up any new ones. I honestly believe that he wants to be remebered by history as "the guy who made the big change and brought peace to the middle east" in order to defuse the ticking time bomb that that area has turned into.

As evidenced by the events of 9/11.

And it sure won't happen if they pull out now, before the area is stabilised. The UN isn't capable of doing anything real until it goes through some pretty serious reforms.

So the US and GB, and Japan and a whole bunch of other countries have to stay for a while. There is no other option right now, unfortunately.

A few years from now, many of the gloom and doom crowd will either be proven right or wrong.

Given their track record of late...I'd say it will be the latter.  

[ January 19, 2004, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes the UN and EU in particular need high visibility and the Iraqi people want a say NOW.

The longer the US and Britain remain the more volatile the situation becomes. They have no credibility.

Afghanistan is a far harder project because of the total generational loss and infrastructure destruction.

Mike you made my point - the root of the terrorism is in reaching a spot where those that perceive they are oppressed feel enough progress is made in addressing the situation to stop the terror THEMSELVES.

Saddam is gone = good for Iraqi people

How Saddam is gone = bad for the world but it's done - there will be lingering suspicion for a long time. The US has done immense harm to it's reputation.

World help for Iraqis - good for Iraqis good for the world in many many ways especially if Iran moderates which is very unlikely if the US is parked next door.

Continued occupation - bad for both Iraqis and the world.
Continual threat of increased destabilization as fundamental organizations have a clear and present danger in their midst to rally adherents.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

wheeee, this is getting to be fun!

>> MacNutt: George W. made quite an impassioned speech during his recent visit to Britain.

There is a world of difference between a man, any man let alone a politician, making an impassioned speech and actually delivering on that promise. As I said, I am yet to be convinced that the US and GB have the will or the determination to stick it out to the end.


>> MacDoc: ...continued occupation - bad for both Iraqis and the world.

They *must* have a secure environment to develop within and history has shown us, over the long and short term that that security can not be supplied by the other middle-eastern states. Why should this time be any different. It's not as if the neighbouring countries have the well-being of the Iraqi people in mind.

Mike


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Like I said...we will see if the doomsayers and the conspiracy theorists and the Bush bashers are right....and the US is strictly there to "steal the oil" or if Bush and Co. will simply set up yet another captive dictator. 

I don't think so.

And the people who are predicting this end result have been dead wrong about everything in recent memory.

Given that sad track record...I'm betting on Bush.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacNutt: And the people who are predicting this end result have been dead wrong about everything in recent memory.

Care to enlighten me on this one.

Mike


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Guinness...

Do an ehmac search and you will find out just what these same doomsayers and Bush-bashers were predicting would happen if we went into Afghanistan and what sort of horrible conflict was facing the coalition should George W. ever have the stones to actually make good on his threats to invade Iraq. Doom and Gloom and millions of dead. The end of the world, really.

It's all there in black and white, in the ehmac archives.

There's lots more too. About how impossible it will be to hold Iraq and how Saddam will never be caught and on and on and on.....

Dead wrong on every count.

Consequently, when I hear a dire prediction from one of these ill-informed oracles then I instantly rest easy. Going from past experience, we can be pretty certain that the absolute opposite will actually come to pass.

Have a look for yourself. It's all there.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt:


> I'm betting on Bush.


that's just far too easy


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Hey gang...

Once more to the theme of this post... 'world order'... I'm still interested in discovering what our planet looks like now, and how it might look like under a new _world order_. I also want to understand the motives for the term, use, and vision(s) of those who see the world contained and controlled to an single ideology under the global umbrella of _ world order._

So who has the best solution for a _world order_? And who has the right to impose theirs' on others. Is _world order_ required to have peace on earth? Or only consensus that each will abide by their own rules of order within each political; religious, or whatever 'order'... but within their own borders. (Macnutt... yes, it's very similar to the argument you make for smokers-only bars, but you would have to declare Salt Spring Island a country)

And about those terrorists/freedom fighters and guerrillas; do these groups, with their own beliefs, also see, and aspire to a _world order_ albeit different? What I'm asking is, do other societies have the same right of envisioning their own world order as has any other group or nation?

Is the present view of world order by our *free* world (order) the model to be copied?

And if nations don't follow doctrines as suggested by interlopers, do they have the right to force those nations to abide by the _suggested changes?_

IMHO, problems arise when one faction invades and/or interferes with anothers' thinking and processes. Call it campaigning; crusading; spreading the word, etc., it still causes the same friction among friends, families, cultures, groups, religions and nations, giving birth to those terrorists/freedom fighters and guerrilla groups.

BTW, I'm not referring to the Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein type of dictatorships, but to countries who want to live in a manner different from those of us viewing them from the outside... _and may even choose to keep their own resouces!_


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"They must have a secure environment to develop within and history has shown us, over the long and short term that that security can not be supplied by the other middle-eastern states. Why should this time be any different. It's not as if the neighbouring countries have the well-being of the Iraqi people in mind."

Yep and you can bet Europe an other nations and the UN agree whole heartedly. It's not going to happen while the US is there as occupier.

This will continue instead - it's a total attraction for regional violence.

"Jan. 19, 2004. 01:00 AM

Suicide bombing kills 20 in Iraq

SARAH EL DEEB
ASSOCIATED PRESS

BAGHDAD—His clothes covered with blood, Karar Abbas broke down after pulling seven bodies from the wreckage of a massive truck bomb yesterday in downtown Baghdad.

"I carried them myself," said Abbas, a civil defence soldier. "These massacres have become so common."

The U.S. command said "about 20" people were killed and 63 wounded in the suicide attack at the entrance to the U.S.-led coalition headquarters, housed in what was once Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace. Nearly all the victims were Iraqi"

The US even acknowledges their lack of skills in this area

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/us/2003/0627looks.htm

"The Pentagon has been accused of being unprepared for the postwar violence in Iraq, and Army officials have complained that they are not trained to do the kind of police work that is needed there. "We're not terribly good at peacekeeping, so I don't know why we would be training people to be peacekeepers," said Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based think tank"

from the same article

"With more than half the Army's deployable troops now engaged in peacekeeping and stabilization operations around the world, including Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and especially Iraq, the Pentagon says its purely military capabilities are stretched thin — a problem that is widely acknowledged. *Senior Bush administration officials are coming to believe that the best solution is to create a standing constabulary force made up of troops from a range of countries — but led and trained by the U.S.* It would be distinct from a proposed North Atlantic Treaty Organization rapid-response force and apart from the U.N., which has provided peacekeeping missions for decades."

duh







we're not very good at it but we want to train and lead despite the fact there are already trained forces available.  

Hmm the blind leading the foolish.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macdoc...



> Senior Bush administration officials are coming to believe that the best solution is to create a standing constabulary force made up of troops from a range of countries — but led and trained by the U.S.


Now I know how a _new world order_ starts. What the above implies is what I eluded to before... the USA wants to replace the United Nations... and run the whole shebang! That's why they have played down the UN's effectiveness following their refusal to join in the attack on Iraq.

Scary as hell!


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

MacDoc, so we are agreed that, in order to provide for any given social group to advance to a more free and open level, we must provide a secure environment within which they can develop. And we are agreed that, as presently constituted, the US and GB do not represent the correct security force. And I am assuming from your lack of an argument that you agree that the other middle eastern states cannot serve as an acceptable security force. So, who does supply the force. Certainly won't be Canada, since you are telling me that we will not be funding a military capable of performing that role, or are you suggesting that we send in Search and Rescue teams and the RCMP do do the job, because someone is going to have to do it, and if we think that here in Canada we can get away with not funding a military capable of at least a limited degree of "take and hold" capability, what's to stop other countries from doing the same. Then, when the UN comes a calling, what are we left with ... nothing but bad and worse to choose from.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"we must provide a secure environment within which they can develop".
Nah nah not so fast.
WE!!!!
Take up the white man's burden.
No WE are not responsible to be engaged in a sovereign nations affairs without either invitation or the UN and we are irresponsible to the world community to do otherwise.
Exactly the situation the US and Britain are in now.

Extrapolation from this sitatuation is very dangerous.

Here's the heart of it..US and Britain must disengage.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/7645463.htm 

*the meeting must primarily be between the United Nations and the Iraqis.* 

Okay you ( the US and Britain) are in ...how to get out.

What I find ironic is the US also wants the UN in







Perhaps the mud is getting a tad sticky.

and stickier

"U.N. help sought on Iraq vote

Monday, January 19, 2004 Posted: 5:35 PM EST (2235 GMT)" Facing protests by tens of thousands of Muslims in Baghdad, top U.S. and Iraqi officials have asked the United Nations to weigh in on whether early direct elections could be held for a provisional government. 

Leaders of the U.S.-backed coalition and its handpicked Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) asked U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan Monday to send a "technical mission" to Iraq to look into the possibility of early elections or other alternatives.

Annan said further discussions would take place before he decided whether to send such a team, but he expressed doubts that direct elections could be held in time for a planned handover to an interim Iraqi government this (northern hemisphere) summer.

"I have indicated that I don't believe there may be enough time between now and May to hold elections," he told reporters after meeting coalition and IGC leaders.

Meanwhile in Baghdad, an estimated 100,000 Sunni and Shia Muslims joined in a massive demonstration in support of calls for early direct elections."

.... more 

The situation has also been very difficult for Japan.

Japan Military to cross the Rubicon

[ January 22, 2004, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macspectrum...

What you apparently do not see...or choose to not acknowlege...is the simple fact that North America was attacked on 9/11 in a very brutal way. A whole bunch of people...Canadians included...were murdered in terrible ways while doing nothing more threatening than going about their daily business.

Just the same as you and I do, every day.

And more threats of mayhem followed. Then a guy was caught while trying to light a couple of bombs in his shoes, while on a transatlantic flight.

Turns out he was connected to the same group of murderers that attacked the World Trade center and the Pentagon.

Big surprise.

Then...alll of a sudden... Spain and Portugal and France and Britain all cracked local terrorist rings that were connected to these guys. And found all sorts of nasty stuff that was destined to kill or maim ordinary citizens who were just making their way through another ordinary day.

So...we went into the heart of the matter and took out the illegitimate leaders of Afghanistan. The taliban was dispersed or in jail, Al Qaeda and Usama were on the run or in jail.....

Then we took on Iraq. The keystone terrorist state of the whole middle east.

Now, it is on the edge of democracy and Saddam is in jail.

And a WHOLE BUNCH of the other former Rogue States are making "nice" and opening up to everyone. Terrorism is on the wane. Dictators everywhere are looking for the door.

And I'm not sure why you have a problem with this, macspectrum. Frankly, it puzzles me.

Do you suppose that we did not have a right to do this? Because these countries were "sovreign countries"?























Did the people of these countries have ANY say in what their despotic leaders did? To them...or to anyone else?

And are they not MUCH happier and better off now, than they were before?

Are WE not much happier and much better of than we were when the tyrants were in power?

Would you prefer that everything was back the way it was BEFORE the US took out the tyrants?

If so...why?

Please explain.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: WE!!!!

For heavens sake, MacDoc, read some of these posts fully before you comment back. If you have not been able to tell from all of my posts. let alone this particular one, that my advocacy sits squarly behind the United Nations, and that the "we" in my post was in reference to the rest of the planet, then you really need to slow down a little bit and re-read some of this material. You seem far to anxious to interpret most of my posts in light of your beliefs.

Furthermore, I actually resent the "white man's burden" statement. I find it has no basis in fact within any of my posts, and would appreciate an explaination as to where and why you think that it applies.

I await your reply 

Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacNutt: The keystone terrorist state of the whole middle east. <<


Run this one by me again, MacNutt, I'm not sure where you got this information.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's implicit in the first line which is why I quoted it.
'We must".........

I know where you stand regarding the UN but the attitude of superiority and "moral duty" is very easy to slip into and the situation there is one that make it of the utmost importance that it all be "by invitation" across the board.

Mexico bravely stayed out of this war and is watching very closely how it's handled as are many other small nations around the world that value their sovereignity.

"Law Groups Say US Invasion Illegal

By Jim Lobe
OneWorld
March 21, 2003

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter requiring countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defense only in response to actual or imminent attack, two U.S. legal groups said Thursday.

The U.N. Security Council's refusal to approve a resolution proposed by the United States, Britain and Spain clarified that the weapons inspection process initiated by Security Council Resolution 1441 last November should have been permitted to continue before military action could be authorized, added The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and the Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF).

The two groups, the U.S. affiliates of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), supported an open letter signed by 31 Canadian international law professors released Wednesday that called a U.S. attack against Iraq "a fundamental breach of international law (that) would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War." Such an action "would simply return us to an international order based on imperial ambition and coercive force," they added."

Illegal attack 

Whether you agree or disagree with the legal beagles those ARE US legal types and it's read around the world. 
The way this unfolds now that the breach has been committed is extremely delicate.

As far as I can see the "UN by invitation of the Iraqis" is the methodology acceptabe to Iraqis and the world but the fact remains you have occupying powers with vested interested and the three way game is hard to do gracefully without the UN and occupiers being in disagreement - since they were from the start and there is still acrimony.

There are two levels of power struggles going on here.
The original one with the US unilateral action without the the UN approval AND the Iraqis getting out from the occupiers and inviting in the UN without being perceived as needing "permission" from DAD. ( aka US & Co )

Sticky mud indeed.

"We must" should not be in our vocabulary these days regarding this very crucial series of events.
The entire world and in particular the Arab street is watching how this is handled. It's a mess, it could get worse.

Being ready to trade and aid is indeed worthy.....when invited.

Don't get your dander up but it's an important distinction that I felt needed a bit of needling to get across.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

MacDoc: ... the attitude of superiority and "moral duty" is very easy to slip into ... <<

Yes, I can certainly see where the attitude of superiority and "moral duty" is easy to slip into ...

I hope you didn't hurt yourself.









Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Seriously, however, MacDoc, give me a scenario, then, for the re-entry of a UN peacekeeping force into Iraq based upon the sudden and complete departure of the exsiting US and GB forces. Don't forget, now, that Canada's role is to be played by hundreds of Search and Rescue service people and they are to be backed up by some heavily equipped forest fire fighters and avalanche rescue teams - I guess the St. Bernards can supply security - oh, and Air Canada can get them all there, I suppose.

And, don't forget, that the UN has to wait until the Iraqi's ask them to come in before they depart, nice fellows that they are.

Mike


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*"Law Groups Say US Invasion Illegal
By Jim Lobe
OneWorld
March 21, 2003*

Macdoc, if you feel the need to quote an article to further your point, can you *please* use either the Quote button or blockquote tags so that folk can tell more easily what you're saying and what the article is saying? 

It is kind of annoying when your words just continue on without any tangible end to the words you are quoting. It's also hard to tell if you are violating copyright or not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mike the problem is delicate for the reasons mentioned as it's maneuvering on many levels at once trying to heal a serious breach in world order. At this point with it appears to be a timeline issue and a "handing over of the keys".

The US administration certainly "appears" to be conflicted - wanting to maintain control of the process ( and $$ ) yet clearly seeing the political need to satisfy an increasingly annoyed US public.
No easy answer.  

•••
0110000101101110011011110111010001101000011001
0101110010001000000110100101101110011100110110
1001011001110110100001110100011001100111010101
1011000010000001100011011011110110111001110100
0111001001101001011000100111010101110100011010
0101101111011011100010000001100010011110010010
00000101000001000010

[ January 22, 2004, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Hey Macdoc, 

01001001 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110100 01110010 01101001 01100010 01110101 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00101100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110011 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 01101101 01100001 01110100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01110000 01101111 01110011 01110100 01110011 00100000 01100010 01100101 01110100 01110100 01100101 01110010 00101110 00100000 00100000 01010100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110101 01101100 01100100 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100010 01100101 01101110 01100101 01100110 01101001 01110100 00100000 01100001 01110011 00100000 01110111 01100101 01101100 01101100 00100000 01100001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110010 01100101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110101 01110011 00101110


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Watch the language please!   

Anyone care to translate?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm not sure, but could it mean "numeralobotomy'?

Cheers


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: No easy answer. <<

Well surprise, surprise!

Now kindly explain why you keep tryiing to put forward a simplistic approach to the problem.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

http://nickciske.com/tools/binary.php 

"I wasn't contributing, "....indeed. 
Then why don't you let the ones who are contributing make the request or use PM.

As if your signature wasn't "hard to read ".

Your "agenda" is pretty obvious and your negative posture very evident.

•••
and yes Mr. Mayor you are welcome to delete the entire exchange if you see fit. You'll get no argument from my end.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm not - it's not simple - however it's a pre-condition in my eyes before anything in the nature of stability CAN be forecast for the situation.

I'm encouraged by the UN approach which formerly seemed quite tentative - I'm not sure how the recent meeting went. No question the UN facility getting hit further made the untangling that much harder.

N Ireland isn't stable yet but at least the "occupiers" are gone in the everyday in your face sense.

There was always a great risk that Iraq will be unstable for a long period. more later....client


----------



## blue sky (Oct 24, 2003)

> Did the people of these countries have ANY say in what their despotic leaders did? To them...or to anyone else?
> And are they not MUCH happier and better off now, than they were before?
> Are WE not much happier and much better of than we were when the tyrants were in power?


1) Too true, the citizens of these countries did not have much say, as there was a significant amount of "control" over their lives, limiting their freedom of expression, lives and opportunities. It has happened so many times in history and continues to do so. One might even state that this "control" is creeping into the USian mindset.

2) It is very bold of you to say that the citizens of these countries are much better off and much happier. While some things are better, and some despicable individuals have been removed from their position of control, one form of control has been replaced by two or more similar forms (occupation and guerilla warfare).

3) I would not say that I feel happier and better off. Guess my opinion, and those of a few others, does not count. Had those hundreds of billions of (devalued) US dollars been spent on improving the quality of life for the citizens of this planet, instead of destruction, I would be able to say that I was happier.

As for "world order", whatever happens will come about from the use of force, unfortunately, instead of the building of trust, which not too many countries have regarding the US. Now, if the US started building bridges, versus destroying them (first and then sort of rebuilding), one might feel comfortable in an era of Pax Americana.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*"I wasn't contributing, "....indeed. 
Then why don't you let the ones who are contributing make the request or use PM.*

I'm sorry if you can't take criticism out in the open. If your posts were easier to read, maybe I would contribute to the thread more?

*As if your signature wasn't "hard to read ".*

What exactly do you mean by this? My signature is a line from a movie. It isn't meant to be hard to read, although if you haven't seen the movie I guess it might be hard to see the humour behind it.

*Your "agenda" is pretty obvious and your negative posture very evident.*

Oh? Do enlighten me. I am not trying to convey a negative posture at all, I just want to be able to read your posts easier. If you want to PM me about it, feel free.

*Mr. Mayor you are welcome to delete the entire exchange if you see fit. You'll get no argument from my end*

Of course he can, he's the mayor and it's his prerogative. Please don't make it sound like I'd argue; I'm the one who wanted more moderation, remember?

Feel free to PM me about this if you want, I wont post on this matter in this thread again. It seems to make the natives restless.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: At this point with it appears to be a timeline issue and a "handing over of the keys" <<

OK, I can go along with that. However, you still haven't explained where the new security forces are going to come from. If Canada and all of the other like-minded countries are going to shelve their military organizations in favour of "National Service" volunteers or draftees, and those people are to be trained in non-military roles, who's going to secure Iraq so that the civil-engineer types can do their work.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You are taking my "non military" way too far. I've stated clearly several times peace keeping training is different from traditional military and that international policing and peacekeeping is a proud tradition and can and should be part of Canadian Services.

The Coast Guard part of Canadian Services also needs armament for enforcement both of pollution and fishing issues, smuggling and even looting prevention ( in a major coastal disaster). I'm suggesting a BC Commune.

Do you fund strike jets or heavy transport planes for disaster relief? There a thousand such decisions to be made over the next two decades.
We HAVE a muliticultural country what better representation abroad than a well trained peace keeping core that represents that image as well.

Nation building and peace keeping are different than military as the US practices it. They know it, we know it.
Sure some aspects are crossed over but it's where the bulk of the funding and training goes into.
There's nothing wrong with our supporting a true UN military force under the UN flag and I would say you would see Canadian volunteers for that.

Canadian forces in people's minds at home and abroad should not = soldier 
should = relief with all that term implies.

We are in a rather unique situation. I'm not implying all nations should go the same route. Even Europe HAS viable border threats for which traditional military is likely vital for a long time.

Here's an interesting article in aid and trade

Netherlands most development friendly nation 

Now this is the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and it's this kind of activity is our best "defence" in that we are helping create a peaceful world.

If we look at what various nations can contribute based on their geo-political realities a strong military is not one we need pursue. 

"New Zealand, which is not known for generous foreign aid giving, comes in 4th thanks to a strong showing in migration and peacekeeping policies."

I think we need a shift in thinking and I think that shift is happening even within the military already.

Who would you think the Iraqi people would prefer to over see their elections. Us or the US.??

Easy answer and in that answer is the heart of my argument.
We should maintain and enhance what we have left of our "good world citizen" effective peace keepers, glad you're here rep world wide. *Our very best defence.* 

Right now we flounder between that and traditional military. No vision, little support, neither done well.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: I've stated clearly several times peace keeping training is different from traditional military and that international policing and peacekeeping is a proud tradition and can and should be part of Canadian Services.

I can agree with this completely except for the part of who has ownership. The Canadian Services can and should be part of the Canadian Military.

Yes, there is a world of difference between the training requirements of a military such as the US has developed and the military as it has developed in Canada. That being said, however, there are a number of minimal service level requirement, one of which is that you must maintain a military style organization. As I said right from the beginning, it must include a force level capable of performing the role similar to that of the PPCLI, or Royal 22nd or any other of the current Canadian forces regiments. They must be equipped for a "take and hold" mission, not because they will have to execute it, but because they might have to execute it. They must have Coyotes, not firetrucks; they must have close support aircraft or helicopters, not SAR aircraft; they must have a military chain of command, not some civilian generated organizational chart.

MIke


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We'll have to agree to disagree because the Services I envision would be much wider and include some military style elements but I would not want it to be under military jurisdiction.
It's already too top heavy and it also is tradition bound to some degree.
SAR is not military but has elements.

Here's the model I think is a better one
http://www.nss.gc.ca/site/whoWeAre/index_e.asp

"The National Search and Rescue Secretariat (NSS) is an * independent agency of government*, reporting to the Lead Minister for Search and Rescue (the Minister of National Defence).The NSS was established in 1986 to support and promote the activities of the National SAR Program (NSP) as a means to achieve highly effective and economically responsible search and rescue programs throughout Canada.

The NSS coordinates central activities for the federal element of search and rescue, which includes the federal SAR delivery departments:

Department of National Defence (DND) 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canadian Coast Guard) 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) 

Parks Canada Agency 

Transport Canada, and 

Environment Canada (Meteorological Service of Canada)

What is the National SAR Program?


The National Search and Rescue Program (NSP) is the name we give to the collection ofSearch and Rescue services provided by all agencies and individuals in Canada, regardless of type of activity or jurisdiction. The NSP is not a real program run by one organization. It is a collection of autonomous organizations, some government, some volunteer, some military, some emergency services, some emergency measures. These organizations and services have always existed, but we believe in the importance of providing a focal point for all SAR activities. We call this focal point the National Search and Rescue Program

We have learned that "Search and Rescue" takes many forms in Canada: hoisting from the sea, receiving distress alerts, locating people in distress, navigating across frozen land with few visual cues. We have also learned that there is a collection of skills that each specialist uses that would benefit others, and the NSS wants to foster greater communication to facilitate the exchange of this knowledge to improve SAR. For example, the firefighter can learn rope rescue from the mountaineer, the emergency measures worker can learn extrication from the firefighter. The mountaineer can learn base support planning from the emergency measures worker.

*It is important to collect these services under one umbrella to provide a comprehensive safety net, even though operational program delivery is carried out by many agencies and volunteers*. The importance of this definition is that it allows for a central focal point for Search and Rescue, making it easier to gather and share information, exchange knowledge and experience, and explore mixes of skills that might otherwise not occur. " 

Notice the DND is under the SAR umbrella and that's in my opinion exactly right.

it would take not a lot in my mind to expand this into a wider umbrella - SAR for the world -  








= safe harbour in every sense of the phrase. Whatever the situation in Canada or abroad you're glad to see it on it's way to you.

You know what I'm talking about - it's different than military.
For it's time - so was this
Merchant Mariners 

A "get it done" ethos.

It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall when the SAR was taken out of the DND. You can bet the fur flew then.

Clippers please  

Without a lot of fanfare I think this is already happening - sea change....sorry I just love puns.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Come on, MacDoc, just how long would the Merchant Marine have lasted in the North Atlantic in 1941 without a well equipped, supplied and lead Navy?

As for DND being under the SAR umbrella, get a grip. What the articles say is that the NSS has overal responsibility for coordinating the SAR activities of all branches of government. It has no actual authority over DND and, I would expect that DND personnel, even those seconded to SAR would be subject to immediate recall by the military should they be required. More importantly, those military personnel would continue to be subject to the normal forces chain of command structure.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*' for the times"* 
The requirements are different now.
If Canadians are to get "best use" of their investment dollars then I think this style makes a lot of sense and the top heavy military structure and "style" can easily be in conflict with the wider range of services envisioned.

Part of this is how both Canadians and others in the world view Canadian Services.
Viewed as "military" doing some socially good things as incidental to their military function is different than a Canadian Service that has some military elements to it but whose PRIME function is NOT military.

That's a good description of the SAR set up and I think a good prescription for a Canadian Services progam as we are discussing.
I just think the military elements should not be the lead element.


----------

