# If asked to take up arms to defend our nation, would you?



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Hello,

I am curious as to how many of use would take up arms to defend Canada if the need arose.

I'm not interested in "but who's going to attack Canada" responses, because not only do I not know but I don't think it's relevant to the question.

If Canada called, would you answer?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Just to clarify. I wouldn't be hopping on a boat to go over and attack Bora Bora or anything. If someone was on our soil though (foreign occupiers) I'd be a bit miffed and have to join in whatever we could come up with. Head for the hills and go guerilla!


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

With much trepidation I would take up arms to defend our nation. War is fun and all in video games, but in real life it's something I'd much rather not participate in unless absolutely necessary. With my nation and my livelihood in jeopardy I think Canadians should enlist to protect what we have when necessary.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If I thought it was necessary and just, I would.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

At 48, I'd be more of a liability to a regular fighting unit than anything else, but like Carex, if Canada was invaded I'd "head for the hills and go guerilla".


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

My little brother's training into the army for quite some time and has enticed me to train to become an army reserve member for quite some time. I'd fight on my own soil for my own country. It's a scary thought to die outside of Canada so I just wouldn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan or something.


----------



## IT 101 (Dec 7, 2005)

If Canada needs me I will be there, so should it be necessary that I get called out to defend our nation, no questions asked id be there.


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

Hi,

No.

s.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> At 48, I'd be more of a liability to a regular fighting unit than anything else, but like Carex, if Canada was invaded I'd "head for the hills and go guerilla".


At 61, I would give you a hand sir!


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

What if you were asked to go to Eye-Rak?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

If it was on Canadian soil e.g. we were being invaded or something, then yes. 

In the case of no immediate risk on Canadian soil, definitely not.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

In a heartbeat. Anyone who wouldn't pick up a weapon to defend our soil and our way of life is not a true Canadian.


----------



## IT 101 (Dec 7, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> In a heartbeat. Anyone who wouldn't pick up a weapon to defend our soil and our way of life is not a true Canadian.


RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> In a heartbeat. Anyone who wouldn't pick up a weapon to defend our soil and our way of life is not a true Canadian.


the real question becomes; "what do you mean by 'defend?' "

as put ealier; "would you go to 'eye-rack'?"


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Of course. However, I wouldn't lift a finger to hold Québec in Confederation if a clear majority wanted to leave.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Gerbill said:


> Of course. However, I wouldn't lift a finger to hold Québec in Confederation if a clear majority wanted to leave.


what if quebec voted to separate and struck up their own military using cdn. military with allegiance to quebec and they decided to take over federal installations?

it gets complicated


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> as put ealier; "would you go to 'eye-rack'?"


If Iraq attacked us and we took it back to them, yes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> what if quebec voted to separate and struck up their own military using cdn. military with allegiance to quebec and they decided to take over federal installations?
> 
> it gets complicated


Then the rest of Canada would have to kick some butt?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PB, that's a tough question. I grew up very patriotic in the US, but when my time came to serve, I refused combat service, although I was willing to go to Vietnam as a non-combatant paramedic. I was given my Conscientious Objector status, drafted, but was never called up. What I am trying to say here is that it depends upon the war. If the US landed on the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador, wanting to take over Churchill Falls, up in Labrador, and many of the fresh water lakes to supply water for those in Arizona, and were willing to invade Canada militarily to do this, I might just join up, even at my age. However, unless Canada is invaded, or there is a peace keeping mission that I feel is just, I am not sure if I would go. 

I love this country and feel I owe a debt to the people of Canada for allowing me to come here back in 1977, and to become a citizen back in 1997. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

I would help in whatever way I could - say in a hospital or something - but I don't think I am capable of picking up a gun, aim it at some poor idiot who thinks HE is fighting for HIS country. The people doing the shooting are not even the ones who started or had anything to do with starting the war. They are just victims of a greater "power". They have wives/husbands and kids of their own, who personally have probably just tried to mind their own business.
There has to be a better way than blowing each others brains out, destroying innocent lives and polluting our environment with what ever weapon is of choice.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"what if quebec voted to separate and struck up their own military using cdn. military with allegiance to quebec and they decided to take over federal installations?"

I have no way of proving this, just the word of a neighbor's son who was in the Canadian military back during the last referendum vote, but there were military flights that came and refuled here in St.John's to head up to Goose Bay, Labrador. The fear was that after a "Yes" vote, a Quebec nation needed Churchill Falls power that was guaranteed, and the only way to make sure that Brian Tobin did not make good on his threat to "pull the plug", was to seize it by force. Thus, the military flights going to Labrador "just in case", which were the exact words Justin used when I spoke with him.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"There has to be a better way than blowing each others brains out, destroying innocent lives and polluting our environment with what ever weapon is of choice."

Well put, Cameo. You are, as always, the voice of reason.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Thank you...............now how do we get them to listen?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Cameo, I marched with 250,000+ at various anti-war rallies back in the late 60's and early 70's. Still, the only way to get someone to really listen is to put it all on the line. I personally was willing to go to jail for two years before I was going to take a gun to Vietnam for a year. Luckily, I did not have to do either. Still, I found that people realized that what I was saying was right for me, since I was willing to go to jail for my convictions.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Yes.

Without a doubt if we were in threat of invasion. Also though, if the threat were similar to that faced in WW2 when there was little possibility of invasion - but the danger to way of life and values was very real. In those circumstances I would go to the threat and deal with it rather than have it come here.

Of course, much better to deal with things before they become a real danger, and way better to do so through means other than military.

But if needs be, certainly. Of course.

Mind you, I am pretty much of an age where I'd have to join SINC and Co in the hills. So be it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm with Dr. G and my father who chose to do other work to support the effort in WWII.

I'll quote Koestler on this



> The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums.


Time for change


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

Thou Shalt Not Kill

The 6th Commandment
M.G. Blankenship
http://apostolic.edu/





> WAR
> THERE ARE SCHOLARS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE:
> Some say: WAR IS ALWAYS WRONG!
> Perhaps the answer here lies in our understanding of the purpose of Gov't.
> ...


----------



## ernestworthing (Jun 10, 2004)

Of course, you must realize, the threat of invasion is not always easy to ascertain. Nations use salami tactics -- slice by slice invasion. By the time the enemy gets to your shores, it's already too late to respond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics

In modern warefare, the enemy will never put you in a position where a nation can go to war in good conscience and still be effective. I'm not saying preemptive action is necessary (in fact I think it is despicable), but the tip-over point between pre-emptive action and losing a battle is not always easy to define.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> In a heartbeat. Anyone who wouldn't pick up a weapon to defend our soil and our way of life is not a true Canadian.


When my Grandfather immigrated to Canada, he stood before the Judge and was asked a series of questions.

One of them, the Judge asked him if he would send his sons to War to defend this country.

Now he was the most patriotic Canadian I have ever met. A true Canadian in the sense of the word.

Risking his citizenship, he looked the Judge in the eye and firmly stated No. He would not send his sons to War because his religion does not believe in war.

Because he stood up for his religious beliefs, does that make him any less of a Canadian?

I on the other hand do not share his religion. However, if this country cannot provide it's soldiers with adequate equipment to defend this great nation, I would not fight. However, if Canada was invaded, and my family was in Jeopardy, yes, I would fight until my last breath.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

The commandment is "You shall not murder". Not kill. Important difference.

That being said, I would have many of the same qualifiers already being mentioned in this thread. The question of the poll is vastly oversimplified. If Canada called would I answer? Absolutely. In a combat capacity? Almost certainly not.

Guytoronto and cheerleaders, I would respectfully suggest that it is a failure to understand diversities of opinion that is most un-Canadian like. Or at least, unlike what we aspire to be.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MaxPower said:


> Because he stood up for his religious beliefs, does that make him any less of a Canadian?


In my opinion, yes it does.

Family first.
Country second.
God third. (I'm atheist, so only the first 2 apply)


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

Exodus 20:13 (New International Version) 
13 "You shall not murder."

Exodus 20:13 (King James Version)
13 Thou shalt not kill.

Respectfully submitted.....


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> In my opinion, yes it does.
> 
> Family first.
> Country second.
> God third. (I'm atheist, so only the first 2 apply)


So by that rational, you are judging my grandfather for standing up for what he deeply believed in? Someone with whom you have never met (or ever will).

It is also obvious that you do not have Children of your own. God forbid my sons will ever have to face the horrors of war. If faced with my Grandfathers dilemma, I would not want them to go to war either.

It's funny this comment coming from someone who firmly believes that all firearms should be banned. (correct me if I'm wrong)


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Because he stood up for his religious beliefs, does that make him any less of a Canadian?


I don't see how. I realize it's a touchy point because there is the argument that he should defend the right to have that choice - a choice not granted in every nation. 

I would hope that the definition of a good Canadian would be a good bit broader than whether or not someone would fight, or send their kids to fight.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> defend our soil and our way of life is not a true Canadian.


The exhortation of every tyrant to their cannon fodder 

That attitude is part of the problem ...not the solution. 

One of the memorable phrases from WWII

*"'They Also Serve Who Only Stand and Wait':"* - just as Dr. G did there are choices a person can make that supports the defensive effort of their nation without resorting to weapons.

My father worked hard in strategic industries and your attitude shows incredible disrespect for the women and men who stood in support of those who chose to fight. We sheltered US kids that CHOSE not to fight in Vietnam and they made Canada all the richer for their willingness to take a stand.

Dissent and choice is what the WWII was about....lest YOU forget


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

I came to Canada in conscientious objection to the war in Vietnam. I have steadfastedly opposed the Gulf War and the war in Iraq. I do, however, philosophically support peacekeeing missions & self-defense. If Canada were physically invaded, I would hope to find some means of stymying the invaders that did not require me to bear arms or to kill anyone, but if push came to shove I would defend my loved ones, my home, my fellow Canadians and my country by whatever means necessary. I believe in peaceful means of solving disputes/problems/etc., but I know I'm a veritable tasmanian devil when phjysically threatened ~ a "failed" conscientious objector? or somesuch.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> The exhortation of every tyrant to their cannon fodder
> 
> That attitude is part of the problem ...not the solution.
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*Straw Dogs* come to mind. 

Thanks for the post DS.....I think you point out an important distinction between state war and individual threat/conflict.

At what point do the two intersect?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

You're less Canadian if you don't have a citizenship. Ideology and personal belief have nothing to do with it. You could hate everything about the country and still be a Canadian...albeit a weird one. 

There is no such thing as a single Canadian belief and I, for one, like that.

[Edit: Just noticed it's my 500th. Happy anniversary to me.]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - wood with grain running all the same way is weak  
Ever tried to bust a burl


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> In a heartbeat. Anyone who wouldn't pick up a weapon to defend our soil and our way of life is not a true Canadian.


There are many people who took up arms to defend this section of land, and were in fact the people we displaced to create such a world. How dare you attempt to offer a description of honour based on willingness to defend hegemony and empire. What of those who picked up a weapon to defend themselves in the Metis rebellion, against the Imperialists in Ottawa? or those who didn't who lived in Acadia? More fundamentally, what about those who did not face an gun when their land was invaded... nothing but an explosion of epidemics, and a set of pox-totin' colonists ready to 'reserve' their existence into the history books.

I would rather simply speak of the 'true Haitians', or 'true Mexicans' who have chosen to choose life and life for their people over the implications of the bloated, white, capitalistic, CANADIAN economic threat. I would not pick up arms for this country, as my grandfather did not in England in WWII as his country was indeed being invaded. He believed as I do today that it is wrong to kill. Your words suggest that he, who laboured his entire life in England's factories, was not 'true English'. Maybe you're right, maybe he didn't feel proud to be English, given what he probably had to endure to feed his children I can't imagine anyone of us would be compelled to do it.

It is easy for us to disregard class, race, gender, and poverty when dealing with such highly complicated subjects. It is critical not to side-step these issues when dealing with war, as you attempt to do with your ridiculous and two-dimensional analysis. If the allies had even half their 'pro-war' citizens, with as much democratic mobility as we do, and as much access to and decimation of information as we do today, working and striving for peace and social justice, the treaty of Versailles would not have happened. They did not however have the same opportunity as we do today. I would rather you use your "balsy" (and I mean that because you are not likely to find a bunch of women spewing such lunacy... they are much brighter) sense of honour to judge those who choose to perpetuate hate, racism and violence (systemic and overt) an CAUSE war in the first place, then we can judge who is a 'true... whatever'.



guytoronto said:


> Family first.
> Country second.


If this is common place, no wonder we have people starving in our country. When you vote conservative or Liberal on January 23rd, be sure to sign up for the military while you're at it, because I don't give them long before they lead us to the mess that their buds in the US and Mexico are already waging... we're gonna need a lot more 'true Canadians' like yourself.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

I would also like to offer an observation, that when people refer to 'just wars' they instinctively refer to WWII. I would not dare tread on the honour of those who made the decision to fight, OR those who chose not to. 

I would like to mention that our citation of this atrocity has become limited to simple quotations from Churchill, and the like. We have halted our analysis and question asking and I wonder why.

I solemnly and wholly suggest that you cannot assess WWII without analysis of WWI and the treaty of versailles, and without analysis of class and economics. This is not to marginalize peoples honour in defending what was truly under attack, but is rather to honour the injustices performed in the years preceding which created the chaos. WWII was fought by people, but was started by pigs-- English, German, Japanese, Russian, all of them-- over fifty years we saw the collision of empires, and we still see it today (even the same ones!). For THAT reason, we must engage with questions of causes, violence, and injustice. We must not reduce our discussion of war to simple terms of 'would you' or 'wouldn't you'... because, to contribute to the library of WWII quotes, "to remember is to end all war"

I will steal Dr. G's one on this when I say to you all: Paix, mes amis!


----------



## The Great Waka (Nov 26, 2002)

Ravijo and others: Thank you.

No, I would not fight. I'd like to think that that is my right as a free citizen to make that choice. Yes, I know a lot of this based on the situation, but there is no way that I'm going to pick up a gun and kill someone who my government decided to label 'the enemy'. 

Besides, why don't we just settle global conflicts like they did in India ages ago? Have the leaders play a game of chess. Of course, this would require us to have global leaders that have the intelligence to actually play chess


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

duosonic, it took courage to leave the US and come to Canada rather than go to Vietnam. I know that my mother begged me to take the same route, since she was born in Montreal. I personally chose to stay and fight my draft board for my Conscientious Objector status, and luckily I won. However, a few of my friends came to Canada back in 1969 and 1970.

I tend to think that with people like them, and people like yourself, we are a richer country for this reality. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I'm too old and my flat feet would most likely be a hinderince,
However if asked, I'd work the radar like my mother did in World War 2.
I couldn't be a Pilot in the R.A.F. as my father was but would love too though.


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

Well, one of two things would happen to me if there was a war big enough to cause a draft.

The first, since i'm in the live theatre industry, i would probably try to prove i was integral part to providing entertainment to the masses. 

Or 

Sent out in the first batch for trainees, due to my age, and applicable skills and knowledge, with the whole scouting thing. Since Scouting began as pre-training to becoming officers in the British Army.

I would fight in a war like the world wars where there was a small threat to my safety, not something like Iraq.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ravijo I agree 100% which is why I said "if any war" regarding WWII.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Heart said:


> Exodus 20:13 (New International Version)
> 13 "You shall not murder."
> 
> Exodus 20:13 (King James Version)
> ...


Aye. One of the places where the KJV falls down. 'tis a beautifully poetic translation, overall, but not wholly accurate.

It's not a big deal, really, except that I think there are lots of good arguments from a Judeo-Christian faith perspective to support a pacifist choice. There's no need to hang that point of view on a mistaken piece of translation.

There is also, it should be noted, ample support from a Judeo-Christian faith perspective for the concept of just war. Just war is the belief that while war is always a poor choice, and always a sign that we have failed, we acknowledge that sometimes we are unable to find the better way out. There are circumstances wherein violence, while a poor choice, is the only one that is realistically open to us. I believe that soldiers serve and important and vital role in society. BUT I don't know that I could do what they do. I don't think I could, in fact. If I believed the cause were a just one, I would do my part. But I don't think my part would be as one who does the actual shooting. I could be much more helpful in other ways.

For anyone who is a faithful person, this is not an easy question to answer. But then any faith that offers you easy answers is probably selling something


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Well said Ravijo! I would take up arms to defend my family and friends. I wish for peace but I have no illusions as to the mercy of invaders or occupiers. Heading for the hills would be a good option.

While I do not subscribe to the blind nationlastic pride crap, I do hope Canada's bloodstained honour can be salvaged through better deeds. I don't have a lot of hope for that as I mostly see a bunch of piggish, money grubbers up at the top and throughout all levels. Our culture encourages it.

RevMatt: "any faith that offers you easy answers is probably selling something" - exactly! faith in God or faith in a religious figure. Better to have faith in oneself and the greater good with no human higher power.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

I gave this question a bit of thought, and I have decided that yes. I would take up arms to defend Canada if it were threatened, same as if the United States were threatened. Just as American pilots joined the R.A.F. before the U.S.'s involvement in WWII, Americans would be there in a heartbeat at your service. Even the U.S. bashers must know this to be true. 

I believe in exhausting all peaceful methods before war is waged, but I scream like a banshee and fight like a Viking when threatened.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I think there are lots of good arguments from a Judeo-Christian faith perspective to support a pacifist choice." RevMatt, I strongly agree with your point. This is what I tried to convince my draft board to understand back in 1970. I don't think that they fully understood or accepted my logic and arguement supporting some of the similar points you just made. However, I guess they realized that if I was willing to go to jail because of my convictions, I would not make a very good soldier. Thus, I received my CO status, and was drafted, but not called up for active duty.

However, if my son came to me today and told me that he did not want to go back to university (he is finishing up his first semester), but wanted to join the Canadian military, I would not stop him, so long as this is what HE wanted to do and was willing to pay the price of his decision.

My son once asked me if the US decided to invade Canada, with whom I would side. While it was a tough question, I told him Canada, in that I can't envision Canada doing anything offensive against the US to warrant the retaliation, but I could envision the US going on the offensive for either oil or water.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> but I scream like a banshee and fight like a Viking when threatened.


I surrender.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

darkscot said:


> RevMatt: "any faith that offers you easy answers is probably selling something" - exactly! faith in God or faith in a religious figure. Better to have faith in oneself and the greater good with no human higher power.


You've made a leap there that I'm not willing to make. Faith in yourself, I would submit, is the most likely faith to be subverted by easy answers. It's just that a corrupted self-limited faith doesn't drag anyone else down in the process 

ravijo - you make excellent points about the cause of WWII. There is no doubt that the hardship imposed by the "victors" of WWI was a contributing factor. But it was not the only one, nor does acknowledging that fact excuse us from asking whether the response was warranted. Was WWII largely inevitable after Versailles? Yes. That does not change, I believe, the final analysis about the necessity of responding to the German aggression. It SHOULD, however, have informed what happend after WWII, and, indeed, what happens after every conflict. Sometimes that even happens.

We should also say, that even if the cause is just, that doesn't give carte blanche to all actions in service of that cause. Fire-bombing Dresden, for example, is something we should be ashamed of. So, to go back to the original question, even if I am willing to take on combat duty, that does not excuse me from continuing the analysis.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> but I could envision the US going on the offensive for either oil or water.


A scary thought, Dr.G.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> I could envision the US going on the offensive for either oil or water.


The U.S. government of the moment is just about belligerent enough, but the American public wouldn't stand for it. I guarantee it. 

What if Canada invaded the U.S. and made us say "eh?" and eat poutine? How cruel!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Darkscot, scary, but a possibility. I would envision an assault upon Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, for the oil in both provinces, and the fresh water here in NL. 

"Live Free or Die"..........."Death before Dishonor"..........."I regret that I have but one life to give for my country".............“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> What if Canada invaded the U.S. and made us say "eh?" and eat poutine? How cruel!


Evidently, you've never had good poutine.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> The U.S. government of the moment is just about belligerent enough, but the American public wouldn't stand for it. I guarantee it.


While water in particular will become a tense issue I think you are right. Strange things happen, but such an attack is hard ti imagine, except perhaps in a nice Hollywood conspiracy movie.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Reading through the responses, guytoronto's stance reminds me of Heinlein's Starship Troopers.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Miss G., if the oil runs out, or the southwestern US goes dry, there will be a price to pay here in Canada, NAFTA or no NAFTA.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Sonal said:


> Evidently, you've never had good poutine.


Imperialist!


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Miss Gulch,

Once the war is over you will just have to accept the New Way, starting with poutine. Start here:
http://www.avivalasvegas.com/Pages/poutinetalk6.htm


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> You've made a leap there that I'm not willing to make. Faith in yourself, I would submit, is the most likely faith to be subverted by easy answers. It's just that a corrupted self-limited faith doesn't drag anyone else down in the process



Depends to what levels of morality one subjects oneself to. Easy answers are given in major religions. Follow the rules and thou shalt be saved.

I'd rather people be dragged down by individually through their own corrupted self-limited faith than subject many to it. 

I am somewhat happy of the results religion has had for some people, it has mixed blessings I suppose.

Also agree, as you said: "ample support from a Judeo-Christian faith perspective for the concept of just war". I just finished reading "The Hiram Key", a book about the supposed beginnings of Freemasonry which provides quite a different view of Judaism and Christianity ("Paulianity" as the authors called it) than what we have been taught and presents Jesus and his Nazarenes as ready to wage war to regain their nationhood. A very good read.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Miss G., if the oil runs out, or the southwestern US goes dry, there will be a price to pay here in Canada, NAFTA or no NAFTA.


Do you really think so, Dr.G? How would they sell that action to their citizens, do you think?

And Miss Gulch, do you really think the majority of US citizens would refuse to act against Canada. Think they would see through the lies?


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Pelao said:


> Miss Gulch,
> 
> Once the war is over you will just have to accept the New Way, starting with poutine. Start here:
> http://www.avivalasvegas.com/Pages/poutinetalk6.htm


Non, non. I shall join le French fry resistance! :-(


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

darkscot said:


> And Miss Gulch, do you really think the majority of US citizens would refuse to act against Canada. Think they would see through the lies?


Oui! We would see through the lies, and not disturb the poutine "up there."


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*I Wonder What's In His/Her Oatmeal?*



ravijo said:


> II solemnly and wholly suggest that you cannot assess WWII without analysis of WWI and the treaty of versailles, and without analysis of class and economics.


Conclusion, after said analysis:



ravijo said:


> WWII was fought by people, but was started by pigs-- English, German, Japanese, Russian, all of them--


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> Non, non. I shall join le French fry resistance! :-(


Shouldn't that be Freedom fry?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Do you really think so, Dr.G? How would they sell that action to their citizens, do you think?" No oil, no gasoline. No gasoline, no cars moving. No water.............no life. Wars have been fought over far less, darkscot.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

IronMac said:


> I Wonder What's In His/Her Oatmeal?


Thanks IronMac... is that supposed to be some Quaker joke? It's very funny if it is (this is where you just say "yes" and take credit). Incidentally I'm a "he". Props


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ravijo said:


> Thanks IronMac... is that supposed to be some Quaker joke? It's very funny if it is (this is where you just say "yes" and take credit). Incidentally I'm a "he". Props


No, it's not supposed to be a Quaker joke but given their pacifism it would be appropo that they should appear in this thread isn't it? 

As for the oatmeal reference, it's more along the lines of "Who p-ssed in his oatmeal?".


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Pelao said:


> Miss Gulch,
> 
> Once the war is over you will just have to accept the New Way, starting with poutine. Start here:
> http://www.avivalasvegas.com/Pages/poutinetalk6.htm


I might let you in on a little secret of ours:

Canadian World Domination


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MaxPower said:


> I might let you in on a little secret of ours:
> 
> Canadian World Domination


Thanks for the link. I read, and hardly understood. I followed an interesting link:

http://cwd.ptbcanadian.com/signs.html

I answered yes to only one (#46). OMG, I'm probably not Canadian!


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I solemnly and wholly suggest that you cannot assess WWII without analysis of WWI and the treaty of versailles, and without analysis of class and economics. This is not to marginalize peoples honour in defending what was truly under attack, but is rather to honour the injustices performed in the years preceding which created the chaos. WWII was fought by people, but was started by pigs-- English, German, Japanese, Russian, all of them-- over fifty years we saw the collision of empires, and we still see it today (even the same ones!). For THAT reason, we must engage with questions of causes, violence, and injustice. We must not reduce our discussion of war to simple terms of 'would you' or 'wouldn't you'... because, to contribute to the library of WWII quotes, "to remember is to end all war"


I agree that we must try to learn from history. Certainly Versailles was far from ideal, but at the same time was hardly the only cause of the following war.

As I said in an earlier post we must surely focus on finding means other than war, or even the threat of it, to resolve tensions.

Still, when all is done and regardless of who causes a war, it may well be that our home, family and way of life is under threat. I would certainly be willing to defend those things - and deal with those who had caused the conflict when it is all over. I doubt if I would choose to decline a defense of that which I hold dear because I did not like the way the path to war had been handled.

If I am facing that choice because of mismanagement of our security and international relations then I would want those responsible for the mismanagement held accountable.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

HowEver said:


> The Liberal government had the choice, several times, and did not join the U.S., and for the last year has been more openly critical of the war in Iraq.
> 
> The same choice was made for Afghanistan, where a real and credible threat not only existed, but was responsible for the deaths of scores of Canadians on September 11, 2001. That wasn't just defending a neighbour's interests, our own were at take. So of course, we sent soldiers to Afghanistan, and there they remain.
> 
> ...


You aren't wrong except that Paul Martin, and his henchman Pierre Pettigrew have implicated Canadian troops in a coup d'etat (of a democratically elected president), and genocide in Haiti, and are also covering for US troops in the Gulf (persian) as they go to Iraq. The point I was really trying to get at (though you weren't off by too much) was that Liberals are both focussed on free-trade, and capitalistic efforts to compromise and marginalize the viability of local economies everywhere, but particularly in South America. Without getting too complicated, I can at least say that the Liberals and Conservatives are horrendously irresponsible for the impacts on people of their economic policies and behaviour. 

The Liberals boast economic prosperity, but is hard to justify with respect to the monstrous cost to other countries, and even the cost to lower income, working Canadians. Frankly, their arrogance is rude because that wealth is being stolen from poor people, and is not being redistributed properly. If massive inequitable distribution of wealth, and theft of natural resources sounds like a predecessor to war, it should... it's actually called Imperialism, and Canadian Liberals and Conservatives are very much to blame. On election day, if Canadian's choose to consider only what's good for them as individuals, or perhaps their families, we will see a Con or Lib government for sure. We will also see more homeless, fewer quality jobs, and more countries falling under the shadow of debt, stolen resources, destroyed infrastructure, starvation, impoverishment, and disease. This is precisely why I question the nature of "violence" because you may choose to defend yourself from invasion and attack, but what would the average Canadian do to stop it proactively? That would be a better poll.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I've been away for a while, but now I'm back. Anyone miss me? 

"If asked to take up arms to defend our nation, would you?"

I simply cannot believe 16 people have answered no. While I can understand that some people are ethical pacifists and think all violence is evil, no one said that.

As for "attacking Bora Bora," it has not been Canada's policy to do such things. However, Canada's participation in both WWI and WWII were motivated by the invasion of friendly nations by hostile nations. We fought the Nazis not because they were a direct threat to Canada, but because they were a direct threat to our friends, and to any hope for peace into the future. So: "would you take up arms to defend our friends" is the real question.

Or to put it another way: would you take up arms to keep the tyrants at bay, or would you watch them roll over the innocent?

I am currently reading "Shaking Hands with the Devil." A frightening read. Canada and NATO stood by and watched the massacre of millions. Definitely not our finest hour.

I must quote Ayn Rand here: "War is the second greatest evil on earth. But the greatest evil is tyranny, which is the cause of war."

If we fear war more than we fear tyranny, we will surely live under tyranny. Or worse, stand by and watch the innocent live - and die - under tyranny.

Dr G, you said "PB, that's a tough question. I grew up very patriotic in the US..." Americans are NOT more patriotic than Canadians. In fact, Canadians willingly go to war to combat great evil. While the draft was implemented in WWI, no draft was needed in WWII. Canada asked for troops, and the men of Canada volunteered. That's true patriotism.

Military conscription is always an unforgivable evil. The men of free nations can always be relied upon to fight in the defence of peace and freedom. But the purpose of the draft is neither peace nor freedom, but the implementation of foreign policy thru unpopluar wars fought for unscrupulous reasons. As an example: Vietnam. Or Iraq.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Welcome back lpkmckenna. It's good to have your point of view again.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I've been away for a while, but now I'm back. Anyone miss me? 

"If asked to take up arms to defend our nation, would you?"

I simply cannot believe 16 people have answered no. While I can understand that some people are ethical pacifists and think all violence is evil, no one said that.

As for "attacking Bora Bora," it has not been Canada's policy to do such things. However, Canada's participation in both WWI and WWII were motivated by the invasion of friendly nations by hostile nations. We fought the Nazis not because they were a direct threat to Canada, but because they were a direct threat to our friends, and to any hope for peace into the future. So: "would you take up arms to defend our friends" is the real question.

Or to put it another way: would you take up arms to keep the tyrants at bay, or would you watch them roll over the innocent?

I am currently reading "Shaking Hands with the Devil." A frightening read. Canada and NATO stood by and watched the massacre of millions. Definitely not our finest hour.

I must quote Ayn Rand here: "War is the second greatest evil on earth. But the greatest evil is tyranny, which is the cause of war."

If we fear war more than we fear tyranny, we will surely live under tyranny. Or worse, stand by and watch the innocent live - and die - under tyranny.

Dr G, you said "PB, that's a tough question. I grew up very patriotic in the US..." Americans are NOT more patriotic than Canadians. In fact, Canadians willingly go to war to combat great evil. While the draft was implemented in WWI, no draft was needed in WWII. Canada asked for troops, and the men of Canada volunteered. That's true patriotism.

Military conscription is always an unforgivable evil. The men of free nations can always be relied upon to fight in the defence of peace and freedom. But the purpose of the draft is neither peace nor freedom, but the implementation of foreign policy thru unpopluar wars fought for unscrupulous reasons. As an example: Vietnam. Or Iraq.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

lpkmckenna, re your comment about something I wrote to PB ( "PB, that's a tough question. I grew up very patriotic in the US...") and your comment that "Americans are NOT more patriotic than Canadians", I never said nor implied that Americans are more patriotic than Canadians. I said that I was brought up to be very patriotic, and when it came my turn to serve in Vietnam, I said that I could best serve my country either as a teacher, or as a non-combatant soldier. Read through what I said and it was all in reference to me personally, and my views, rather than any comparison to Canadians and Americans. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

No offense intended, Dr G.



Dr.G. said:


> I grew up very patriotic in the US, but when my time came to serve, I refused combat service


The "but" in your statement seems to imply that denying combat service is unpatriotic. I was trying to argue against that notion, not against Americans. I guess it came out all wrong. Sorry. Peace.


----------



## ernestworthing (Jun 10, 2004)

lpkmckenna, well articulated. I am generally a peace-loving person, but if I am asked to take up arms to defend my nation, I would. (of course, I think I could be of more use on the tactical side, given my training in operations research and optimization; but I am not afraid of combat).

I think we who live in free lands forget the fact that our freedom was paid for by someone else. 

That notwithstanding, I can appreciate why some people would prefer to participate in noncombat capacities. So would I, if possible.... but push comes to shove, I would not be averse to dying for my country on the battlefield.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I simply cannot believe 16 people have answered no. While I can understand that some people are ethical pacifists and think all violence is evil, no one said that.


Yes they did. My father stayed out of military service in WWII exacty on those grounds tho he worked in the war industry as an alternative and Dr. G I suspect would take that stance - did take that stance - as well.....as would I.

Rwanda is a glimpse of Malthus and the horrors of colonial manipulation all rolled together in a human holocaust the likes of which we unfortunately are very likely to see again.

Defending family and friends has a very different "encompassing circle" for different people.

State engendered war is different than a violent home invasion and there are many levels of violent conflict in between and there are just as many different reactions to those levels.

Ghandi went about freeing India from English "tyranny" differently than the Tea Party crowd in the US.

The "fight for home and country" etc since WWII has left 1.2 billion people dead.

Hardly a panacea for human development of peaceable communities.

Evolution has endowed us with a a mix of flight and fight reactions and a widely divergent spectrum of tolerance for "unfairness" and an unfortunately strong "tribal sense" which likely served us well on the savannah but not so well today where "not us" leads to violence far too easily.

I'm with some of the researchers that say that both peace and war are learned behaviours and we have to systematically battle our human primate natures to develop the former communities.

Chimps murder, bonobos don't. Differences in the genes and in the culture of both species.

We and chimps share too much.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> "There has to be a better way than blowing each others brains out, destroying innocent lives and polluting our environment with what ever weapon is of choice."
> 
> Well put, Cameo. You are, as always, the voice of reason.


Perhaps, but it is hard to reason with bloodthirsty tyrants. Sometimes, a "diplomatic solution" can avert war. Sometimes, you just need to put a rabid dog down.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> In my opinion, yes it does.
> 
> Family first.
> Country second.
> God third. (I'm atheist, so only the first 2 apply)


Rubbish. Pure rubbish.

The only thing to judge personal choices is ethics. The only obligation: to do what is right. Making hard'n'fast rules of first/second/third is making a mockery of how moral reasoning actually works.

BTW, I'm an atheist, too.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Heart said:


> Exodus 20:13 (New International Version)
> 13 "You shall not murder."
> 
> Exodus 20:13 (King James Version)
> ...


I'm not sure what you're submitting here. Are you defending the KJV as the only "true bible" or are you stating that there are many equally valid biblical points-of-view?


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

No. No 'country' is worth becoming a killer or getting killed. 'War games' never benefit middle class and lower and destroy their lives regardless.

There is no such thing as 'patriotism'. It is as childish as following a religion (orginized or not).


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ravijo said:


> I would like to mention that our citation of this atrocity has become limited to simple quotations from Churchill, and the like. We have halted our analysis and question asking and I wonder why.


Discussing WWII is extremely valuable because it is a clear-cut good-vs-evil struggle. Just like in science, where you need a "control group" in order to clarify the analysis, WWII provides a circumstance where discussion about a "just cause" become evident to everyone. The Nazi intent was irredeemably evil, and no matter whether you were liberal, communist, jewish, or christian - you could not help but see it.

WWII is important for another reason: England demonstrated moral leadership while the USA demonstrated moral cowardice. The lesson of standing up for your values and your friends was starkly laid out. The UK feared tyranny more than war. The US feared war more than tyranny. The modern-day American resolve to crusade in the name of freedom has only one source: to never again feel like cowards.


----------



## AlephNull (Jan 28, 2005)

> No. No 'country' is worth becoming a killer or getting killed. 'War games' never benefit middle class and lower and destroy their lives regardless.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'patriotism'. It is as childish as following a religion (orginized or not).


Agreed.

I am definitely the minority, and may not be living up to this patriotic Canadian consensus here, but I dont think defending my country is worth becoming a killer (as yatko said), or puting my life into extreme danger. I think I'd just surrender and take the conquerers down from the inside .

Following ones country, without complete understanding of why, and whether it seems worth it to you, is senseless. If I thought that I should put my life in danger and kill others, i would do it only to defend my ideals, and my values, not those of my country.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Yes they did. My father stayed out of military service in WWII exacty on those grounds tho he worked in the war industry as an alternative and Dr. G I suspect would take that stance - did take that stance - as well.....as would I.


I am talking about what was posted here, not what your relatives 60 yrs ago said and did.



MacDoc said:


> Rwanda is a glimpse of Malthus and the horrors of colonial manipulation all rolled together in a human holocaust the likes of which we unfortunately are very likely to see again.


Looking to Malthus for an explanation of Rwanda is like looking to Rush Limbaugh for an effective weight loss strategy. Malthus was an unremitting idiot.

And while colonial manipulation played a part, you somehow forgot about savage tribalism, racism, and the absence of pluralism in such non-liberal societies. And the fact that NATO looked the other way, knowing exactly what was coming.



MacDoc said:


> Defending family and friends has a very different "encompassing circle" for different people.


I agree. If someone were to tell me he had a disabled relative needing care, it would seem explicable. If someone were to tell me he needs to stay home to act in patriotic movies, I might be skeptical. 



MacDoc said:


> State engendered war is different than a violent home invasion and there are many levels of violent conflict in between and there are just as many different reactions to those levels.


Ok, whatever that means.



MacDoc said:


> Ghandi went about freeing India from English "tyranny" differently than the Tea Party crowd in the US.


Good thing Churchill, not Ghandi, was the one staring down the Nazis. Non-violent civil disobedience is effective against absentee landlords like the British, but worthless in the face of genocidal killers.



MacDoc said:


> The "fight for home and country" etc since WWII has left 1.2 billion people dead.


An overgeneralization unworthy of analysis.



MacDoc said:


> Hardly a panacea for human development of peaceable communities.


Whatever that means.



MacDoc said:


> Evolution has endowed us with a a mix of flight and fight reactions and a widely divergent spectrum of tolerance for "unfairness" and an unfortunately strong "tribal sense" which likely served us well on the savannah but not so well today where "not us" leads to violence far too easily.


Tolerance of unfairness and strong tribal sense is an exact description of the cowardice NATO demonstrated in Rwanda. Or the USA in the face of the Nazis. Incidentally, blaming evolution for tolerance for unfairness is silly. And "tribal sense" is not an in-born instinct either.



MacDoc said:


> I'm with some of the researchers that say that both peace and war are learned behaviours and we have to systematically battle our human primate natures to develop the former communities.


Wrong. We do not have to battle our primate natures. We only need to embrace our true nature as "the rational animal." That is the only path to peace.



MacDoc said:


> Chimps murder, bonobos don't. Differences in the genes and in the culture of both species. We and chimps share too much.


Chimps settle differences with violence. Bonobos settle differences with indescriminate sexual contact. Sorry, but I don't see how rubbing crotches with the Nazis can avert war. 

I really missed you MacDoc. Our little intellectual debates are what keep me coming back here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

WWII is hardly clear cut in the Pacific.



> Sometimes, you just need to put a rabid dog down.


 and sometimes the rabid dog ate a bar of soap. 
Were it all so simple..it's not.
Who judges rabid? - perhaps the dog was fed soap so you'll shoot it.

A "civilized" society in my mind goes to great lengths to avoid physical conflict internal or external ( there are other tyrannies as well ) and in the case where physical force is required invites volunteers ( police are such ) to act as the physical arm of the nation or legal system.

For this those volunteer citizens are both rewarded in accordance with the risk they take and carefully vetted and overseen by civilian bodies so as not to present a threat themselves. "Psycho" the pilot comes to mind.....along with amphetamines. 

I think the difficulty in any discussion like this is the "scale".
Comparing defending on a localized scale versus state sanctioned mass warfare are trying to equate situations that are far far apart.

The most violent primate on the planet is a 2-3 year old human.
Most do learn to be reasonably peaceable and it often takes great restraint.

Can larger societies do so.......not very well to date. 

If we are burdened with comparisons US approach versus Canadian approach to a peacable world???? I'll take Canada's.

And I think it shows both within and without both societies.
We celebrate diversity as opposed to assimilation and THAT in itself is huge step to reducing violent conflict.

Peace is learned - we haven't yet 

Patriotism trumping our common ground as humans.....is folly of the direst sort in my mind.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

AlephNull said:


> Following ones country, without complete understanding of why, and whether it seems worth it to you, is senseless. If I thought that I should put my life in danger and kill others, i would do it only to defend my ideals, and my values, not those of my country.


I would never ask anyone to follow me "without a complete understanding of why." If you don't agree with the why - don't fight, and say why you won't fight. Just don't say: all violence is wrong. Pacifisim is a non-solution to the ever-present problem of evil.

I have to quote our own government policy here:

*Clarify objectives and intent*
To provide subordinates with maximum freedom of action and the capability to operate independently if necessary, leaders must communicate a clear picture of the outcome or outcomes they wish to achieve.

*Keep subordinates informed; explain events and decisions*
The routine and prompt passage of information contributes to subordinates’ situational awareness and their ability to respond appropriately to a changing situation. Candidly explaining events and decisions often reduces tensions created by uncertainty,and is critical to maintaining the trust relationship between leaders and led. 

source: Leadership in the Canadian Forces, page 32
link: http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/CFLI/engraph/leadership/doc/DND_Doctrine_e.pdf


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

lpkmckenna, I again see your point. I should have used "however" rather than "but", in that it conveys my transition of thought far better in a semantic sense. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well perhaps you should take your argument up with the likes of Jared Diamond and others who clearly see the Malthusian elements that were a large part of the conflict.
Maybe when you finish the book and read some of the surrounding literature you'll see the land use and division issues that created the tinder box....along with colonial manipulation.
Perhaps get into a class with this gentleman and call Malthus and idiot.
I'm quite sure WHO in that exchange would look the real idiot

Level C/C Bus:	Malthus in Africa: Rwanda's Genocide, Dr. Otto T. Solbrig, Bussey Professor of Biology, Emeritus

Oh yeah - that class is Harvard. There are many other studies showing the Malthusian event that was clearly evident in Rwanda.

But it's interesting you bring that up as D'Allaird was NOT empowered to use lethal force to prevent the genocide even in front of his own eyes.
What SHOULD the good soldier have done.......??

and do you sit in judgement??

BTW I would do exactly as my father did....here, now. 
Time does not change the equation.....societal judgement does not seem to change much either from your reaction.

Reality doesn't conform to little whiteboard "plan of action" boxes....as D'Allaird only too well came to understand.

******

Violence is a non-solution to the ever-present problem of human nature.

and I have 1.2 billion deaths since 1945 backing that statement up.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

lpkmckenna, I again see your point with the "rabid dog" analogy. In WW II, I would have taken up arms to stop the likes of Hitler. I am not sure how I might have reacted in WW I or Korea. However. I would have fought for the north in the US Civil War, and would have fought for the US in the American Revolutionary War. I would probably use non-deadly force to protect you, or any other ehMacLander, from being assaulted.

This might make me a hypocrit, but as I told my draft board, I am faced with only this war (i.e., the war in Vietnam) and I could not see myself killing someone in this war. A paramedic is on the front line, but carries no weapons, only medical supplies. I am not sure how good a paramedic I would have been, but I waited from Sept., 1970 until the last soldier drafted for active duty in Vietnam to find out, but was never called up.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> WWII is hardly clear cut in the Pacific.
> 
> and sometimes the rabid dog ate a bar of soap.
> Were it all so simple..it's not.
> Who judges rabid? - perhaps the dog was fed soap so you'll shoot it.


I have wrap up, so I cannot answer everything you said here.

Who judges rabid? When the dog begins attacking friends and neighbours, discussion about "eating a bar of soap" just reduces the issue to a sophistical parlor game. The victims of the rabid dog need help, not psuedo-philosophical posturing.

We are all moral agents. That means, learning and doing what is right. When others fail to learn or fail to do what is right, you must then decide: what must I do now? Then you make a decision, act on it, and stand by it.

If you are right, and have actually done the right thing, you and the world will benefit.

If you are wrong, you and the world will suffer, but you and the world can now learn from the misleading thoughts and actions to avoid future failings.

It's just like touching a hot stove. You shouldn't do it, but once you do, you'll never forget.

The tragedy of Rwanda proves we haven't learned from the hot ovens of the Holocaust. Some of us refuse to learn, saying "who judges which stoves are actually hot, and which are not?"

Moral cowardice is the cause of political cowardice.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"When others fail to learn or fail to do what is right, you must then decide: what must I do now? Then you make a decision, act on it, and stand by it." Amen. The decision need not always be to fight, but we each need to look within ourselves to see what if correct for our own beliefs and act wisely upon those beliefs.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> lpkmckenna, I again see your point with the "rabid dog" analogy. In WW II, I would have taken up arms to stop the likes of Hitler. I am not sure how I might have reacted in WW I or Korea. However. I would have fought for the north in the US Civil War, and would have fought for the US in the American Revolutionary War. I would probably use non-deadly force to protect you, or any other ehMacLander, from being assaulted.
> 
> This might make me a hypocrit, but as I told my draft board, I am faced with only this war (i.e., the war in Vietnam) and I could not see myself killing someone in this war. A paramedic is on the front line, but carries no weapons, only medical supplies. I am not sure how good a paramedic I would have been, but I waited from Sept., 1970 until the last soldier drafted for active duty in Vietnam to find out, but was never called up.


Dr G, you are not a hypocrite. You and I are saying the same thing: I would judge each war independently, and fight or not fight according to my conscience. That's not hypocrisy or moral cowardice.

What I am arguing against is absolute pacifism: that ALL war is evil. Some people on this board are claiming all violence, all killing, and all war is wrong. That's untrue. Killing, in and of itself, is neither good nor evil. The context of the act is more important than the act itself in moral thinking.

That's why long lists of "thou shalt nots" is harmful to moral thinking.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> "When others fail to learn or fail to do what is right, you must then decide: what must I do now? Then you make a decision, act on it, and stand by it." Amen. The decision need not always be to fight, but we each need to look within ourselves to see what if correct for our own beliefs and act wisely upon those beliefs.


Amen.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"What I am arguing against is absolute pacifism: that ALL war is evil." I feel that some people hold this belief, and I respect them for these views. I cannot say that "ALL war is evil" and act upon those beliefs, in that I would look at each conflict independently. Once again, this might be hypocritical, but it is not my intent to be a hypocrite, just honest.


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:


> I'm not sure what you're submitting here. Are you defending the KJV as the only "true bible" or are you stating that there are many equally valid biblical points-of-view?


Many points of view...

Mine and others.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Heart said:


> Many points of view...
> 
> Mine and others.


There are, but the particular issue in question is around translation. While translation can be tricky at time, there is no disagreement within the scholarly community about this one. None. There are two different words in the Hebrew language referring to the act of taking life. One which speaks of the justified taking of life, and one the unjustified. The word that is used in the context of the commandment, which you quoted, is the word which means unjustified taking of life. In the english language, the best way to get at that distinction is to use the word "murder" rather than "kill". If you want to get at that distinction with different phrasing, you go right ahead. I don't mind. Maybe you will find something even easier to understand. Fine with me. But there is no question that there is a distinction, and there is no question what word is being used here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G the Quakers did not "fight" in physical terms yet I dare they exercised "power" and continued to do so with the likes of women's suffrage.

••

lPK the problem arises when the neighbor of a neighbor of a neighbor tells a neighbor a rabid dog is loose and exhorts you to join and do battle with it.

That's the reason I have been distinguishing between a immediate circle of action to which you in person are privy and engaged versus state sanctioned or mob inspired violence.

You may choose to shoot the dog indeed and it may be the cautious thing to do in the circumstances and you may be held accountable for it's death.

When it comes to "circumstances" beyond your local ken ......a different story and set of choices entirely.

Going to "war" for your country is a different question entirely than defending against a home invasion, or children from a bully. They may share some aspects of choosing a course of action but the commitment of an entire nation to war engages, in my mind, a very different set of issues.

There were those in WWII who without killing did great damage to the Nazi ability to conduct war.

Blowing up a rail line is a very different act thatn blowing up an engine with perhaps one of your countrymen aboard.

I'd be interested to see a study showing the death toll in areas over run by the Nazis - military confrontation versus covert resistance.

The Norwegians lost 850 citizens in the initial Nazi overun.
The British lost 4,000 in the same arena. Which approach was "right"?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All I can say is that I am both proud and thankful that my father volunteered in WWII and was wounded in action in Germany staring down the Nazis. If everyone had "opted out" for whatever reason, the world might very well be a much different place today.

It takes guts and courage to defend against atrocities, and it takes a coward to opt out.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> The Norwegians lost 850 citizens in the initial Nazi overun.
> The British lost 4,000 in the same arena. Which approach was "right"?


I am not disputing your overall point MacDoc, but there are maybe better examples. The British losses reflect a much larger concentration of force in direct contact with the German forces, whereas the Norwegian forces were, naturally, covering a great deal more ground. 

It's so very true that many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, contributed to the demise of the Nazis though they never entered direct combat. Whether or not they avoided direct combat through choice or because their skills were needed elsewhere should not matter. The Nazis were defeated by entire nations going to war, one citizen at a time, each in their own way. Those few who were not prepared to help in any way at all clearly have to justify their choices to the toughest judge, their own conscience.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> It takes guts and courage to defend against atrocities, and it takes a coward to opt out


It takes guts and courages to stand by your convictions of non violence when there are dickheads like you calling my father a coward.

He served the war effort AND his conscience and didn't bow to the ignorant view you espouse.

Stick it where the sun don't shine


----------



## rubeole (Oct 21, 2005)

SINC said:


> It takes guts and courage to defend against atrocities, and it takes a coward to opt out.


America needs more people like you. *ahem*


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> It's so very true that many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, contributed to the demise of the Nazis though they never entered direct combat. Whether or not they avoided direct combat through choice or because their skills were needed elsewhere should not matter. The Nazis were defeated by entire nations going to war, *one citizen at a time, each in their own way.*


Exactly. This is what the US could never understand in Vietnam how an ill equipped but highly motivated force who perceived they were defending their homeland could defeat a major military force over time.
It's what Bin Laden knows only too well. 

Without "hearts and minds" temporary "victory" is hollow. One reason Versailles was such a horrible failure and in contrast Truman's plans for Europe and Japan have shown such lasting benefit.....along with those nations' rejection of "war as glorious".


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

"It takes guts and courage to defend against atrocities, and it takes a coward to opt out."


I don't think a person is a coward because he/she cannot pick up a gun and shoot another with it........there are many ways to support your country, the nurses and doctors, the people who stayed behind and kept the economy running as best as they could so there was something to go back to, the entertainers who went out to do shows for the troops where they could to provide something less terrifying than what they were facing, the people providing food for the troops, winding bandages, many other jobs...............these people were not cowards and they were not turning their backs on their country.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A well put and polite response, Cameo. Kudos.

A war effort involves many people in a wide variety of pursuits, although enough soldiers are required to bring the strength of millions to bear on the enemy. 

Everybody can't be 'behind the scenes', but the numbers needed there are vast. It's a tough balance for a country to decide when enough aren't going to the frontline, but I think Canada proved that it does what needs to be done when and where we were needed in the world wars.


----------



## zigzagry (Apr 12, 2003)

Judging by the poll results It looks like we wouldn't have trouble out numbering anyone


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I always thought that this verse of the "Star Spangled Banner" was the driving force behind America's "call to arms" during times of crisis -- 

O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation;
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

If you wait to fight a war on your own border, you've already lost.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

every generation of my family that has been given the call to arms, by Britain or Canada, has answered. I for one would continue this without thinking twice, though it would have to be a WW2 type situation - not Iraq style


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> If you wait to fight a war on your own border, you've already lost.


If you have to fight a war anywhere, you have already lost.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Exactly. This is what the US could never understand in Vietnam how an ill equipped but highly motivated force who perceived they were defending their homeland could defeat a major military force over time.
> It's what Bin Laden knows only too well.


You are perpetuating a myth that just refuses to die. The US didn't lose in Vietnam: they left. The war continued for 2 years after the American withdrawal.

The US never committed itself to the "war." And they left when it became clear Americans didn't care what happened in Vietnam; not enough to sacrifice its own sons. About 58,000 Americans died in the Vietnam war. About 10 times as many died in the American Civil War. That's the price of victory. Vietnam was a half-hearted effort, at best.

Sorry I've been gone so long. Missed you guys (and gals).


----------



## webwiz23 (Dec 10, 2005)

Shure, i'd be patriotic, but the only thing is im very bad with guns. Couldnt shoot to save my life. i'd help from canada's end.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> You are perpetuating a myth that just refuses to die. The US didn't lose in Vietnam: they left. The war continued for 2 years after the American withdrawal.


Let's see. They attempted to achieve a military victory, they staked their international reputation on the ability to achieve victory. They then proceeded to accomplish essentially nothing in the service of the allies they went to help. That sounds pretty much like defeat to me. And this business of saying that they didn't lose because they never technically went to war always brings to my mind the image of the little kid with his fingers in his ears screaming "I can't hear you!"


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Sure, I'd help out but I don't know how useful I'd be. Maybe they could use me to do subversive things like my hero Hedy Lamarr


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> Let's see. They attempted to achieve a military victory, they staked their international reputation on the ability to achieve victory. They then proceeded to accomplish essentially nothing in the service of the allies they went to help. That sounds pretty much like defeat to me. And this business of saying that they didn't lose because they never technically went to war always brings to my mind the image of the little kid with his fingers in his ears screaming "I can't hear you!"


It wasn't a military defeat. Politicians at home saw no benefit in a continued presence in Vietnam: no benefit for the US, no benefit for the politicians, no benefit for the voters or their dying sons. There was never any demonstrated national self-interest, the voters knew it, and finally the politicians figured it out too.

If that sounds like military defeat to you, you need your hearing checked.

The US still seems to believe you can win wars with endless bombs and planes and tanks. Blood is the only price of victory.

By the way, the South Vietnamese weren't anyone's "ally." The US chose to support them, ostensibily to block the growth of communism.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

The Vietnam War was a victory for companies like Bell Helicopter and other military hardware manufacturers

Their "profit" was paid for by the 58,000 American lives and I don't even know how many physically, emotionally and mentally "wounded"

FYI, Halliburton stock has doubled in the past couple of years.
War is good business if you're not a grunt.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> The Vietnam War was a victory for companies like Bell Helicopter and other military hardware manufacturers
> 
> Their "profit" was paid for by the 58,000 American lives and I don't even know how many physically, emotionally and mentally "wounded"
> 
> ...


I think your viewpoint is overly cynical, MACSPECTRUM.

War is always good for business, provided you are in a business that the government buys from for the war effort.

Yes, "big business" benefits from bad wars, but they also benefit from good wars. Watching those damn Ford commercials ("paving the way to victory") demonstrates that.

Blaming the business community for lousy foreign policy is just convenient scapegoating. Will you run to thank the capitalists for their efforts when they help win the good wars, too?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> Will you run to thank the capitalists for their efforts when they help win the good wars, too?


But pretending that big business has nothing to do with government dictating foreign policy is a bit naive... I'd say to roughly the same degree as your assertion that Macspectrum is being overly cynical.

(;->))

Big business interests pull out the stops, behind the scenes, in an effort to get certain individuals elected - and to keep certain others from getting in. Politicians are 'bought' - and otherwise compromised, in varying measures - every day, around the world. When a single corporation can underwrite a significant chunk of any given politician's election campaign budget, surely appeasing that powerful doner, once in power, is not an uncommon response on the part of an elected official.

Do large multinational corporations run the world, trampling democracy in the process? I wouldn't go that far... too doctrinaire and simplistic by half. But the relationship between big business and government is riddled with murky, questionable interfacing.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

You are right, if you wish to draw the fine line between military defeat and other kinds of defeat, vietnam was merely a military stalemate, not a defeat. But does that really matter, in anyone's mind other than those who's misguided jingoism started it all in the first place?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A valid point, RevMatt. I did not support the war in Vietnam in the 60's and 70's, just as I don't support the war in Iraq today.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

a) Robert McNamara calls it a WAR.

b) most of the military calls it a DEFEAT

Whether a combatant loses the ability or the WILL to continue the conflict is immaterial.
Ceding full control of the disputed territory to the opposition and withdrawing from the field of conflict entirely is a defeat.

Japan could have contined to fight but sought to end the war - are you calling that not a defeat ?

Splitting hairs. 

The US lost in Vietnam, the British lost in the US. Neither....surrendered...both suffered miltary and geopolitical defeats in the engagement.

••

It was NOT a stalemate - the US lost the will to continue the conflict, North Vietnam was victorious in this engagement.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, for the historical record, the Battle of Yorktown was the climax of the Revolutionary War. The combined forces of General Washington, General Rochambeau, Admiral de Grasse, and General Lafayette all converged on the greatest concentration of British troops in America. Cornwallis offered to surrender on October 17. On the 19th of October, the papers were signed and he officially surrendered. This would be the final major battle of the Revolutionary War. 

Thus, the British DID, in fact, surrender to the US.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

today those revolutionary troops would be called "insurgents"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

True, Michael. Still, "Death before Dishonor" and "Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

British forces in the field - Britain as a nation was not defeated nor did it sue for peace- a single soldier may "surrender" in that sense.

No question it was a military defeat in a war. So was Vietnam.

I do beleive the US guerrillas were viewed as terrorists at the time at the beginning of the conflict or at the very least "dishonourable combatants. Shooting from ambush....harrumph.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

True, MacDoc. England went on to colonize other countries and regions of the world, in that they were not defeated. Sadly, I see the same scenario in Iraq as we experienced in Vietnam.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Sadly, I see the same scenario in Iraq as we experienced in Vietnam.


I think the US will leave in the short term (excluding a skeleton force in enclaves) and will probably do so prematurely resulting in an Iraqi civil war.

I think the Bush admin will still declare victory and that is where it will be different than Vietnam. It was clear the US did not accomplish their stated objectives in Vietnam. With Iraq, the Bush admin will tout the removal of Saddam, implementation of a Constitution and a free vote as victory. The supporters of this war will claim that a resulting Iraqi civil war was not the fault of the US.

I still think that civil war can be avoided. The UN needs to step up to the plate after the US decides to leave.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

what do we think the odds are that bush will start removing troops from iraq and declaring a "victory" just about the time when candidates gear up for the 2008 election (that would be jan 2007 or so)

or maybe osama pops up just about the time when john mccain accepts the nomination for the GOP?

oh, and let's add in a gasoline price reduction


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> The UN needs to step up to the plate after the US decides to leave.


That security council meeting, the official and unofficial ones, would be VERY interesting. Some well paid spin doctors would get to work on announcing the U.S. vote (veto?). 

I think the UN soltuion would be best (should have been done in the first place if the U.S. and France weren't busy being twits), but saving face will require a good story or...a new democrat president could say with a barely supressed grin 'We voted for a UN solution to solve the problem made by the previous administration ignoring the UN.' 

If this isn't pushed to a decision point before the 2008 election, things will get very interesting and, potentially, set a good cooperative precedent instead of what we have now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm not as fearful of a civil war at this point tho I agree with most of Vandave's points.

It's Iran that poses a destabilizing threat despite the "agreements".

Rather than the UN I'd like Nato to play a role if the Iraqi's are willing. Europe has many ties that are far different than those of the US and if there could be a convergence of interests that serves Iraqi's as a bridge to strengthen those ties well and good.

Given the diversity of the 3 main interest groups it's a damn hard place to govern and the millions of unemployed youth under 25 would give any society difficulty. Combine plentiful weaponry and no "stable core" and it's hard to imagine a society working without a "strong man".

Just look at what the baby boomers did to the US


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i don't know if europe wants to get involved
what benefits does it offer them
the u.s. won't do anything to support the UN as that flies directly in the face of Pax Amerikana


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Rather than the UN I'd like Nato to play a role if the Iraqi's are willing. Europe has many ties that are far different than those of the US and if there could be a convergence of interests that serves Iraqi's as a bridge to strengthen those ties well and good.


They won't have credibility on the Arab street. With the exception of Turkey, NATO is composed of Christian countries. As a whole, Europeans no longer define themselves this way, but this is how many Arabs will view NATO. They will think the west is trying to take their resources. 

With the UN, you would have countries like India and Pakistan contributing to the peacekeeping efforts. It would have way more credibility and take away from the terrorist idiology.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> It's Iran that poses a destabilizing threat despite the "agreements".


Unfortunately, that is the case and shouldn't have been this way.

Iran has a lot of moderate people. With the US beating the drums of war (Axis of Evil), it drove Iranians to support more extremists who are now re-taking power. It's too bad because Iran was slowly moving in the right direction and now they are headed the other way.

I don't see Iran backing down now from their nuclear ambitions. Can you blame them? The US won't touch North Korea and has set a precident that having nuclear weapons is an effective deterrent. I have a feeling the US and/or Israel will bomb Iran within the next 18 to 24 months. If Iran doesn't back down, then I reluctantly would support it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, don't forget that all of those in the House of Representatives are up for reelection in 2006, along with 1/3 of the Senate. Thus, they have to run on a record of supporting the war in Iraq or wanting some sort of withdrawal.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All this talk of impending war is somehow not fitting for the new year. Why don't we just cancel any wars for 2006 and review them again in say, a hundred years or so?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Whether a combatant loses the ability or the WILL to continue the conflict is immaterial.


But the US politicians and US voters were NOT combatants. If you're not wearing a uniform, knee-deep in the mud and blood, you're not a combatant. The fact that politicians and voters lost the will to continue doesn't make it a military loss. Objectively, it was a military and political victory for the US, since withdrawal from Vietnam really was in the US self-interest anyway. Vietnam was always a lose-lose situation. The US was gaining nothing in Vietnam, but was losing its sons, its dollars, its focus, and its self-respect.



MacDoc said:


> Ceding full control of the disputed territory to the opposition and withdrawing from the field of conflict entirely is a defeat.


They did neither. The South Vietnamese continued to fight for 2 years. It was always a civil war in Vietnam - the US was merely providing very limited and unenthusiastic support to the south.



MacDoc said:


> Japan could have contined to fight but sought to end the war - are you calling that not a defeat ?


Apples and Oranges.  Japan was facing the possiblity of a successful US invasion on Japanese soil. I didn't see the Viet Cong actually marching on Capital Hill, did you? 



MacDoc said:


> It was NOT a stalemate - the US lost the will to continue the conflict, North Vietnam was victorious in this engagement.


Myself, I never said it was a stalemate.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Max said:


> Big business interests pull out the stops, behind the scenes, in an effort to get certain individuals elected - and to keep certain others from getting in. Politicians are 'bought' - and otherwise compromised, in varying measures - every day, around the world. When a single corporation can underwrite a significant chunk of any given politician's election campaign budget, surely appeasing that powerful doner, once in power, is not an uncommon response on the part of an elected official.
> 
> Do large multinational corporations run the world, trampling democracy in the process? I wouldn't go that far... too doctrinaire and simplistic by half. But the relationship between big business and government is riddled with murky, questionable interfacing.


Businesses give money to political parties mostly to support favorable domestic policies.

I'm all for a change in the way parties are funded. I'd eliminate all non-personal donations.


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Apples and Oranges.  Japan was facing the possiblity of a successful US invasion on Japanese soil. I didn't see the Viet Cong actually marching on Capital Hill, did you?


Actually the US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan because they feared beach assault. They weren't sure it would even be successful and if it was the number of casualties would be astronomical, drastically impacting their ability to push inward and take much needed strong points in order to secure a position on the island of Japan.

Just thought I'd point that out.


Once I'm done my schooling hopefully a post grad degree, I've thought about joining the military hopefully as an Officer in Military Intel. That or work for the CSE.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Vietnam was not a loss as the US withdrew from a battle that raged on for two more years. They didn't lose because they left before the end. Also, war was never declared on either side. Technically the US was only helping, it wasn't their war to lose.

It was however a big political loss, in that the initial goal of curbing the spread of communism was not realized (in fact, Vietnam is still a communist nation today).

It was also a huge moral loss, what with incidents like the My Lai Massacre (US Troops killing hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians) and the whole "destroy the village to save the village" mentality.

And if nothing else, it was certainly a big morale loss for the Americans. They weren't able to crush their enemy, they weren't able to stop communism. More than 50,000 people died in Vietnam, it seemed, for nothing. It disillusioned a generation of American students, and inspired a good number of the more famous protest songs of the latter half of the 20th century.

So no, the US didn't lose Vietnam in the strictest sense, but the Vietnam conflict did have a similar effect on the nation as if they had actually lost.



Jacklar said:


> Actually the US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan because they feared beach assault.


Actually, the US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan because a) they had two of them and b) they wanted the war over quickly, and without concessions. That is to say, they wanted Japan to surrender without conditions, and they wanted them to do it sooner than later.

It's not like the US didn't have options, it's that at the time dropping two devastating bombs was the option they thought would work best to expedite their plans.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Jacklar said:


> Once I'm done my schooling hopefully a post grad degree, I've thought about joining the military hopefully as an Officer in Military Intel. That or work for the CSE.


Royal Military College of Canada: http://www.rmc.ca/home_e.html
CF subsidized education: http://www.recruiting.forces.ca/engraph/benefits/cont_ed_e.aspx


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> What if Canada invaded the U.S. and made us say "eh?" and eat poutine? How cruel!



:lmao: 

We could compromise with fish and brewis, MissGulch....


----------

