A country worth fighting for? -A political Scenerio

[Michael Dorosh]

At least one of you will have seen this already; I posted it on another board or two.  Interested in your comments.

September 2004; political party Red Banana wins three seats in the House of Commons from Quebec; Red Banana advocates the violent seperation from Canada, and is violently opposed to political and economic ties to America, advocating instead closer ties to France.

Canada has refused to send peacekeepers to post-war Iraq, where guerilla fighting continues even after the overthrow of the Saddam regime. American and British casualties continue to occur among the thinly spread garrison forces. Canada reasons that there is no peace to keep in Iraq, and will not commit troops there. The last soldiers have returned from Afghanistan in the summer; Ottawa says it cannot afford to send more troops there. The Canadian Senate has proposed a three year stand down of the Canadian Forces in order to reorganize and re-equip. Capital equipment projects include the ongoing issue of new uniforms, and the new LUVW truck to replace the ILTIS. The last Leopard battle tanks have been concentrated in Wainwright, they number one regiment.

Water shortages grip the southern US during a massive drought. Tension in North Korea is still high, and Iran has made threatening statements towards the US and its allies.

A small nuclear bomb is exploded in New York harbor; the death toll is enormous. Responsibility is traced to the Middle East - it is suspected OBL is still on the loose along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, but the US has too many troops in South Korea and Iraq to be able to keep up its patrols.

Red Banana states on the floor of the House of Commons that America deserved the attack, given its recent condoning of severe Israeli military action in the West Bank. Called on to apologize, the party stands firm. The Prime Minister of Canada is on vacation and does not apologize for the remarks for three days.

Materials for the bomb are found to have come across the border, carried by three Arab men living in Ontario.

An undetermined terrorist organization threatens more attacks unless the US completely vacates the Middle East.

Parts for other explosives are caught at the border crossing in Montana, again, coming from Canada. Wild speculation of a Canada-wide terrorist organization with ties to OBL flood the news.

A deadly virus breaks out in Manitoba; it appears to be manmade,and soon, the virus appears in Illinois and spreads to neighbouring states.

Oil prices are climbing due to actions in the Middle East.

The RCMP refuse to allow American intelligence operatives into Canada to participate in the hunt for terrorist organizations.

A nuclear detonation in Michigan sends Americans into shock.There are few casualties; it occurs in a rural area - a suspected terrorist lab is probably the source. A horrible accident had occurred. RCMP arrest a man in connection with the New York bombing; he eventually reveals that the terrorists are indeed operating in Michigan, though the majority of the group operates in Canada.

The drought becomes more severe in the southern US with the onset of a heat wave. Canada, not happy with the stance on the Palestinians, won't make concessions on water.

The US demands that Canada allow American investigators onto Canadian soil to find the terrorist organizations before another WMD is used on US soil. Canada refuses. Red Banana calls for a holy war against the United States.

Spanish fishermen continue to deplete fish stocks in the Grand Banks. The Canadian coast guard is powerless to intervene; armed fishing boats routinely send the unarmed Canadian vessels packing. Canada looks to the US for assistance; America replies it has other concerns right now. Evidence has mounted, indicating terrorist camps in Iran may hold the clue to the WMD attacks on the US. Canada refuses to participate in any attack on Iran.

A poison gas attack on downtown Seattle kills several hundred people.

Citing reasons of national security and world peace, M1 tanks cross the border in Manitoba, as American paratroopers seize airfields in Vancouver and Victoria. Vehicle parks at CFB Borden, CFB Suffield and CFB Wainwright are attacked by the air, clinically taking out armoured vehicles in their hangars with minimal loss of life.

The Americans demand the surrender of the Canadian government in favour of an emergency government installed by the Americans, until such time as the terrorist threat to their nation has been eliminated. Ottawa begs for foreign intervention, but no one is listening. America's rallying cry is "Enough is Enough." There is a large backlash in the UN. Poland offers help to Canada, as does Germany. The United Kingdom stands by its ally, the United States, but promises not to get involved militarily. Queen Elizabeth, powerless to intervene, expresses sympathy at the entire situation, as does the Pope.

The Canadian military is called out to resist. Help is on the way from Poland and Germany. Russia offers to assist as well, but it will be some time before they can send any material aid.

The question is this, guys:

Would you fight?

 

[das]

two words man H*** ya I would I was born and raised on Canadian soil and no american is ever going to take one inch of Canadian land while I still breath I may support the yanks in the whole war thing but if they try to take over any part of Canada i would stand before them just because Canada and the States live door to door and help each other out at times don‘t mean the the yanks can tell us what the H*** to do and how to do it. and I‘m sure i speek for a lot here when I say "NUTS" to yanky controled Canada

 

[ninty9]

I must be on the ball, eh Michael?

 

[Gunnar]

It‘s an interesting question. Canada reaps the ultimate consequences of its existing policies, and manages to honk off the US by keeping its head firmly up it‘s a$$. The US responds by attempting to protect itself from the irresponsibility of its Northern Neighbour. Effective terrorist organizations are operating on Canadian soil, and the government is unwilling or financially unable (due to the stupidity of their policies, and the people who continue to vote for them) to stop them.

While I wouldn‘t be impressed by an American invasion of the country, the utter failure of our government to act responsibly on issues of National Security (the primary responsibility of a Federal government) means that someone has to step into the void. The US wouldn‘t do so until it were in their own best interests, which this case amply demonstrates. References to Iran etc. are merely smokescreen...being unhelpful to American aims is within the purview of national policy. If we don‘t agree with their actions world wide, we don‘t have to help. However, actively doing NOTHING about terrorist groups operating out of our country is the same as condoning the action of said terrorist groups.

Would you fight to defend a Canada that condones terrorism, either on purpose or by default? Could you proudly say you defended freedom, honour, the government of Canada, the petit banane de Kapuskasing?

The Canada I grew up in is morphing into a place I‘m not as proud to say I come from. Queen & Country, biculturalism, freedom, Canadian culture are all under attack by those who believe in the "cultural mosaic". I like being Canadian. If Canada is a tomato soup, once you add the noodles, vegetables and beef, it‘s still soup, but it ain‘t *tomato* soup, if you get my meaning. And if you add sewage because the cook isn‘t watching the ingredient list(immigration & law enforcement), and doesn‘t effectively keep people who want to burn down your kitchen (defence) out of the kitchen, you get a toxic, partially burned soup, if you get soup at all. And if the guy in the living room doesn‘t want his part of the house burned down, and isn‘t a fan of sewage for lunch, he might just come into the kitchen to see what the bloody **** you‘re playing at....

So I have to ask you...would you fight to keep the denizens of the living room out of the kitchen, where your cooks let people add sewage to the soup, and there‘s a guy in the corner starting a fire that‘s going to burn down the whole **** house?

While I‘m not a fan of the vegetable soup when I ordered tomato, being Canadian, I‘d probably eat it and say nothing. But when you put sewage in my soup and nobody seems to care, I might wonder if the guys in the living room have better ideas, especially if I notice my house is on fire...

 

[greeves]

I think the question that you would have to ask yourself is are you fighting for the government, or for your country? They‘re two distinct entities. Personally, I would be horrified to see a Canadian government act in the ways described above - but I would be more horrified to see the Stars and Stripes flying over the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill.

 

[SpinDoc]

Holy crap Gunnar, you make the US sound like a white man‘s paradise or something.

The US isn‘t all that different from Canada in terms of ethnic composition... it probably sounds more like the version of Canada that you just described than the Canada that actually exists. There is a lot more racial tension in the US than up here -- are you willing to trade for that?

I‘m willing to bet money that there are more terrorists cells operating in the US than in Canada. Heck, there was a bigger link in Germany than Canada for 9-11. And don‘t forget your US-homegrown domestic terrorists that are just lying low after the Oklahoma bombing.

Don‘t believe in every US politician that spouts anti-Canadian rhetoric -- they are usually fear-mongers who go for the easy reactionary vote in their home states.

 

[Korus]

Hmm.... really interesting scenario. But, how activley is the RCMP seeking out the terrorists? How succesful are they? I think it would be good, in a scenario like this, to allow some US intelligence personel into Canada to work under the RCMP so that it‘s not an immense threat to our sovereignty , so that would be a shortsight on the govt‘s part... But then again, the CIA can be shifty.. Like how they used UNSCOM as a cover to spy on Iraq. (A fact actually reported by UNSCOM inspectors)

It‘s also really interesting to see something similar to what‘s happening in other parts of the world (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq), happening here in Canada. It‘s hard to give an answer right now, because in 2 years, and with much more information, who knows how an opinion could change...

To go with the reply of seeing the stars and stripes hanging over Parliment Hill, that would righteously piss me off. We can see how big of a mistake it was for the US marines to have briefly placed an American flag in an Iraqi town, especially if they‘re trying to win the hearts and minds ot he people.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If you sit down and think about it that senario starts to seem more and more possible.

IF i was the american gov‘t i‘d do the same thing. Canadas security is a joke. They would be acting in "self defense"

I‘d still fight though. Not for queen or country because i honestly think neither give a flying f**k for me but hey if i can save one canadian life..

 

[SpinDoc]

I think the bottom line is, if there is an attack on our lawfully elected government, no matter if it‘s by our bestest friend in the entire world, it is our lawful obligated duty to defend it -- no ifs ands or buts. The foundation of a democratic society is for everyone to respect the democratically elected government until its term is over, otherwise we would just turn into one of those shaky-coup-ridden banana republics.

I think the labels "Quislings" and "collaborationists" are appropriate. And in this scenario, the US is no better than Nazi Germany just before WWII began or post-WWII USSR and its creation of the Eastern Bloc govts.

 

[Gunnar]

Somehow I knew that someone would impute racism into my commentary. White man‘s paradise indeed!

The difference is that America is American first, your ethnicity and religion second. You come to their country, you become one of them. This doesn‘t decrease the number of cultural centres in the US...there are plenty of Polish or Italian neighbourhoods. It‘s just that the attitude is different...they‘re proud of being American first. They are a melting pot. They are not a "cultural mosaic".

I am curious about the "my country right or wrong" attitude of some...I believe that yes, a lawfully elected government shouldn‘t necessarily be overridden by another nation‘s...but I also believe that if a majority of people decide that left-handed people are pawns of the devil and should be summarily shot, that doesn‘t give them the right to do it. And if another nation were to come in to protect left-handers, I might just do nothing about it...Because I believe that "my allegiance belongs to the country in which I prosper" (I forget the latin). Idea being, if my country no longer stands for individual rights and freedoms, why would I be willing to die for it, so that my offspring can live in servitude?

 

[SpinDoc]

I think "melting pot" is just a nicer way of representing a different (less benign) idea, which will remain nameless here. I don‘t think anyone‘s mind on the matter will change much so I‘ll leave it at that.

Keep in mind that it‘s "Peace, Order, and Good Government", not "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness".

The "left-handed" people argument is a strawman. Our law enforcement agencies are much better than what the Canadian and US media make them out to be, and the FBI and other US domestic agencies aren‘t as omnipotent as awe-struck Canadians see them as. I think Canada has a much better grip on terrorist organizations -- domestic or foreign -- than the U.S. agencies do. We might bellyache about lack of funding and whatnot, but one would see the same kind of bellyaching down south. It would be QUITE the day when a government agency tells its govt "oh, that‘s okay, we have enough cash, no need to give us more".

I say the way to beat this problem is to introduce a national digital ID card system to keep track of everyone - health, social insurance, immigration/emigration, criminal records, photo, fingerprint, taxes etc... and you‘d have all govt agencies and agents with digital card readers that lets them read the particular info that pertains to his/her dept. But then you‘d have social liberty people scream bloody murder about privacy and whatnot and how technology will ruin everyone‘s lives and the ethical concerns.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Something to ponder: in "just war" theory, a just cause (eg. self-defence) must not be a hopeless cause. The suggestion is that conflict will only make a bad situation worse.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I know where your comming from Gunnar.
In canada i don‘t think its about being canadian first. I think Canada wants to seem like the multi-cultural center of the planet and in doing so canadian traditions are being brushed aside.

If you say anywhere that your proud to be a white male people look at you suspiciously. If you try and call a gov‘t buisness in ottawa and get upset because no one on the other end speaks very good english YOUR the bad guy.

Maybe my point of view is biased.

 

[SpinDoc]

The racial and ethnic issue cuts both (or many) ways...

Being labelled is a very counterproductive thing. Once someone is labelled, then people usually automatically tags on a whole list of stereotypes.

Francophone - probably a separatist and/or a whiner who wants more concessions from the rest of Canada

Newfoundlander - probably has 10 kids and more on the way, either in the army or unemployed and talk funny

Brown - Islamic fundamentalist supporter and eats curry

Oriental - SARs carrier, Chinese restauranteur

Ridiculous examples, I know. But you get the gist.

Trust me, almost EVERYONE has something against them, it‘s an uphill battle for everyone, white or otherwise. Visible minorities have the unfortunate position that people can form stereotypes just by looking and not talking to them. There are a lot of people who have it harder than us, as seen by the fact that we have the luxury of debating about it here.

 

[Gunnar]

>I think "melting pot" is just a nicer way of >representing a different (less benign) idea, >which will remain nameless here. I don‘t think >anyone‘s mind on the matter will change much so >I‘ll leave it at that.

I don‘t agree, I too will leave it at that.

>The "left-handed" people argument is a strawman.

I don‘t agree. Democracy can mean "majority rule". If someone were to invade to stop something I thought was WRONG, I wouldn‘t necessarily try to stop them. I believe that to be Canadian is a bit more than to live on Canadian dirt. If the Canadian government is destroying that which I believe to be "canadian" values, and someone else is going to set the balance right, I might not be happy about an invasion, but I might be more upset that one was necessary.

>I say the way to beat this problem is to introduce a national digital ID card system

So the solution to a government which is incompetent in its ability to preserve freedom is not to hold the government responsible, but to let Big Brother run law enforcement? Something along the lines of "gun registry hasn‘t worked so far, let‘s throw more money at it...?" Big Brother will give you Order, and maybe even Peace, but it sure won‘t give you good government. Besides, I‘m arguing freedom because in spite of the government‘s POGG power (I have no idea if they still teach that in history), Canada is a free country, and owes much of that to its cultural and geographic proximity to the US.

>The racial and ethnic issue cuts both (or many) ways...etc., etc.

That‘s really interesting and all, but the point of my comment was to explain that I don‘t see this from a white racist point of view. I don‘t really find race to be germane to the discussion. I believe that you go to a country, you adopt (most of, or a least in public life) the customs and traditions of that country.

 

[SpinDoc]

Someone could just as easily argue that instead of Canadian values being "destroyed", it‘s "evolving". Values today differ from values of 50 years ago, which in turn differs from values of 100 years ago.

An example from "modern western history" is that the values of the Enlightenment a couple of hundred years ago may seem very radical to the status quo of the time, but comparatively it bears no resemblence in terms of scale to the values we hold today, or 50 years ago.

I mean, I don‘t disagree with Ghost‘s opinion that people not thinking of themselves as Canadians first and contribute their share to our society deserve the hospitality of the Canadian identity. Nuts to them. At the same time, new Canadians might have a different ideas or way of doing things that may be just different, but may be better in the bigger scheme of things. The best way of doing things (and self-improvement as a country) is to figure out which ideas are good/bad and not just cling to the status quo. Harder than it sounds, sure... no doubt about it, esp. when there‘s a human tendency to dislike change, for better or for worse.

On the subject of Big Brother, etc... some people (maybe a lot, I don‘t know) think that the US‘ style of liberty flirts too much with anarchy and chaos. The Peace Order and Good Government bit taught to me was that it was the order of importance. Peace then Order then Good Government. Having a Big-Brotherish government is not NECESSARILY bad in theory. Remember, a lot of times countries resort to Big Brotherism is to maintain internal security. Now, since the original problem is that of internal security (and how it affects our friends to the south, poor lads being gassed, blown up and all), the solution and problem go hand in hand. We think Big Brother is bad because in Orwell‘s 1984, it‘s designed to suppress thought and political enemies; so, for the sake of argument and thinking outside the box, I think if we applied it to Al-Quada terror cells it would work equally well, esp since the big US problem with us is that we are allegedly too lax in keeping track of people. Keeping track of people with an ID database doesn‘t infringe upon any other democratic rights, like voting, freedom of speech, etc etc.

It‘s all about perspective I think. Different shades of grey. Close circuit TV is widely used in UK while in US it‘s frowned upon. US and Canada have rights written on paper in the form of a Constitution, UK does things differently. Tim McVeigh & co. disagreed with the U.S. Govt, he did what he thought he had to do, and he has millions of folks in the U.S. who think he did right. I think he did wrong, but that‘s my shade of grey.

 

[SpinDoc]

And some food for thought while I‘m bringing up the subject of Timothy McVeigh...

Timothy McVeigh‘s Letter

I find it a little disturbing that if one just took out all the references to the US Govt and replaced it with the Canadian Govt, someone could make a case to do this sort of thing in the name of "values". No doubt that McVeigh did what he did to defend his perceived American values. What would happen if someone decided to do the same thing to defend their perceived Canadian values? I‘m sure he viewed himself as a patriot, and no doubt others still do. So what should the response to his actions be in our scenario where we as Canadians, through our action/inaction, do things that would undermine our government? Should it be:
"Nah, nothing of this sort would happen to Canada"
"Hey, McVeigh makes a good point about values. Our impotent government needs to be destroyed and reborn -- and the US invasion is the instrument."
etc

In my books, criticism against govt policy is fine, but advocating behaviour (even passive behaviour such as failure to defend the govt against a foreign invasion) bordering on treason is... well, disgusting, especially when it is a volunteer military and not a conscript army.

 

[Gunnar]

I think that was sort of the point of the title, "A country worth fighting for". Your own moral relativism (everything is shades of grey) basically implies that there is no good and bad, only differing opinions, so you should fight for the government because it‘s a duty, or because it‘s democratically elected.

But if it‘s all shades of grey, then why should refusal to fight to defend the government or Canadian values be treason...hey, according to you, values are relative...why should I value the government any more than any other issue? It‘s all just a difference of opinion, right?

The Canada that is worth fighting for is the one that is worth defending. If your vision of what is worth fighting for is different than mine, your motivations to defend the country will understandably differ. Today, I would defend my country, because I believe it‘s worth defending. In the hypothetical case above, I might not. Partly because I‘m a civvie, and to actually do something about it would take a lot more effort, and expose me to more relative danger than the rest of ya, partly because of how I felt about the relative "worth" of doing so.

Risk my life for a corrupt or wholly incompetent regime? Not I.

 

[Pikache]

As long as you are wearing the uniform, do you not have an obligation to fight?

It is your job and as long as you agree to wear the uniform, you have committed to do a job.

If the government sucks *** so bad that you can‘t stomach fighting for it, then quit.

I am duty bound and honour bound to fight for this country whether I like the government or not, because I agreed that I‘d do so when I put on the uniform.

 

[Jarnhamar]

BE, that sounds like something a german soldier in ww2 could have said and look at how history remembers them.

Putting on the uniform doesn‘t make you a robot.

Wether its national level or even at platoon level soldiers have to have the smarts to say ‘your out of line‘ to their respective bosses when the situation arises.
You can be court martialed for not following orders but correct me if im wrong, you‘ll be court martialed for following stupid orders as well.